AJ: Sox Get Beltre, But, Still Badly Need Hitting

ESPN is reporting tonight that the Red Sox have reached a one-year, $10 million deal with free agent Adrian Beltre, who played last year for the Seattle Mariners. 

Beltre will play third base for the Sox, replacing Mike Lowell.    While Beltre is an outstanding fielder, his hitting has been fairly ”average” for much of his career, or, perhaps, a little above average at times.  (In 2007, for example)  In 2004, he hit out of his mind, ending with a .334 average, 121 RBIs and 48 HRs and I’ve heard radio talk show chatter about that perhaps being a season impacted by performance-enhancing drugs.  I am unfamiliar with Beltre, except for the rare occasions when I saw him hit against the Red Sox when he always looked good at the plate.

Perhaps more important, the acquisition appears to suggest the Red Sox are less and less likely to add a slugger before spring training, now only about seven weeks away.   Jason Bay is on the Mets.  Matt Holliday appears very close to signing with the St. Louis Cardinals.  The San Diego Padres have indicated that slugger Adrian Gonzalez is not available in any potential trade, and, most baseball observers believe the earliest the Padres would consider trading him is at the 2010 trading deadline.   

Meanwhile, if Beltre plays third, that means Kevin Youkilis will play first base and there are no apparent positions left to be filled via trade or free agency.   Unless GM Theo Epstein has a secret plan in the works – which seems unlikely this time. 

If no bona fide slugger joins the team before the season starts, the Red Sox will have a considerably weaker offense than they did in 2009 – a year that ended with the Sox being swept by the Angels as a result of the team’s pathetic hitting.   Epstein has talked about improving the “run prevention” capacity of the team – i.e. the fielding, which was quite poor in 2009.

The Red Sox deficit in hitting is a new challenge for Theo Epstein and the current ownership group.   Ever since Theo has been GM, the Sox have had sluggers in the lineup – from his first full year, in 2003, with David Ortiz and Manny Ramirez in their heyday – along with a potent supporting cast – until 2009, when the team’s hitting – while still good – began to decline seriously by the end of the year & the playoffs.

Fans are concerned about the hitting.  No one is buying Theo’s preaching about improving the “run prevention.”  No one thinks Mike Cameron, Marco Scutaro, Casey Kotchman and Adrian Beltre are going to strengthen the Sox quiet lineup.  What will Theo do if the Sox get off to a lousy start?  Will they just try to wait things out until the trading deadline, when they might hope to get Adrian Gonzalez?

It’s not clear, but I haven’t heard so much fan pessimism around here in a long time. 

Meanwhile, the speculation is that the Sox will try to trade Lowell before the start of the 2010 season.  The Red Sox had agreed on a trade of Lowell to the Texas Rangers for Max Ramirez – including their willingness to pay $9 million of his $12 million he is owed in 2010; however, that deal was nullified when it was discovered Lowell had to have surgery to repair an injury to his thumb.  Now, Lowell is expected to recover by spring training, when the Sox are expected to trade him again.  The Sox reportedly concluded Lowell, after suffering a hip injury that hobbled him in 2009, will not regain his fielding range.

Lowell may have hip problems, but at least he can hit – unlike several of the newcomers to the team.

While the Sox are adding weak-hitting guys who can field, the Yankees have, argubly, improved more than the Sox in the off-season.  In fact, at the moment, I feel the Red Sox are in an old familiar position relative to the Yankees:  They’re lagging behind – as they did for years.

AJ: Free Agency Can Lead to Weird Outcomes

So, it’s Happy New Year to Jason Bay on the New York Mets!

What?   Does that make any sense?  Assuming Bay passes his physical, the Mets will announce Bay’s arrival this week and I can’t believe how bizarrely Bay’s departure from the Red Sox played out. 

Jason Bay is ending up with a four-year-contract that will pay him $66 million over four years with a vesting option for a fifth year.    That is incredibly close to the four-year $60 million deal the Red Sox offered Bay last July.  So, after all the speculation and talk, Bay goes to the Mets to earn six million additional dollars – and the “vesting option” - to play in a ballpark where he’ll not do nearly as well?  This seems crazy – particularly when you consider that Bay’s departure leaves the Red Sox more desparate than ever for more hitting.    

So, how the hell did this outcome ever happen?  No one knows the truth yet.  There has been talk that the Red Sox were very concerned about Bay’s health, (his shoulder and/or knee), but, no one has confirmed that’s what led to a breakdown in negotiations.   I’ve heard the viewpoint that, at some point, the Red Sox sort of “soured” on Bay, or, that he soured on the Red Soxm but, again, nothing has been confirmed.

In the end, Bay will play in Citi Field, which is not a hitter’s ballpark and where he will not be able to take advantage of the Green Monster as he did frequently at Fenway.   Bay is a terrific pull hitter who fit Fenway Park.  I’ve read about how NY Met David Wright’s hitting declined dramatically in the Mets’ move from Shea Stadium to Citi Field.  I predict Bay will not excell at Citi Field.  He may do OK there, but, with the larger dimensions, I think his hitting will be closer to “average” than outstanding.  His fielding was already “average” at Fenway and will likely remain so-so at Citi.

To me, Bay’s situation is typical of what happens to many free agents.  They’re eager to test the market, understandably, but, sometimes they’re too influenced by their agents, and they lose perspective on what’s the  most important to them — being happy playing baseball.

Jason Bay, by all accounts, was happy on the Red Sox.  His teammatees liked and respected him.  The fans liked him a lot.  The media liked him.  Then, after he got into negotiations, something went awry – perhaps over his health – and he started in the wrong direction.  Then, other teams were not as interested in giving him a five-year deal or a four-year deal that was much higher than the Red Sox.    In the end, right before he signed with the Mets, Bay’s agent was reportedly calling the Red Sox back, trying to see if they could resume talks after he had publicly written the Sox off a couple of weeks earlier.   The Sox had, meanwhile, signed Mike Cameron as a new outfielder, meaning Bay’s old leftfield spot will be taken by eithe Jacoby Ellsbury or Cameron.  It was too late for Bay and his agent……he was stuck with the Mets’ deal as the only one available.

I’ve seen this script before.  I’m also disgusted by the ridiculously high salary totals that free agents are trying to get.   I laughed a few weeks ago when Scott Boras publicly claimed that Matt Holliday should get a salary close to what Mark Teixeira got from the Yankees.  Are you kidding me, Boras?  I can’t believe the Cardinals are reportedly close to signing Holliday for close to $17 million a year for six or seven years for a grand total ranging from $102 million to $119 million, according to ESPN.  I just don’t think Holliday is THAT good!

The Red Sox are reportedly talking to Adrian Beltre, who’s looking for a big contract that I don’t think he deserves based on his record. 

For the record, I thought the Red Sox were smart to not start the off-season by over-paying Jason Bay — but, somehow, some way, they couldn’t even get Bay to agree to roughly the same amount they had originally slated for him.   Something emerged as an obstacle in their negotiations, and the bottom-line is the 2010 Red Sox hitting lineup right now is VERY weak.   The fans are already voicing strong dissatisfaction.  I’m one of them.   

In my view, the Red Sox and the Mets are worse off, and, the only party who might be a bit happier is Bay’s agent, Joe Urbon.  Even he looked badly in the handling of the deal.

So much for free agency.

AJ: A Toast to Peter Gammons

As 2009 winds down, I want to pay tribute to my favorite baseball reporter, Peter Gammons, who has made a unique contribution to baseball over the past 40 years.  

Gammons, a Hall of Fame member,  just left ESPN after 20 years, and will start in new part-time jobs in 2010 with MLB Network and New England Sports Network (NESN), the cable station that covers the Red Sox.

It’s rare to be able to single out one reporter who has influenced you in a significant way, but, I feel I can say that about Peter Gammons. 

Gammons has had a tremendous influence on my own appreciation of baseball.  I’ve always found his enthusiasm infectious.  In fact, sometimes, he cannot contain his own enthusiasm and intrigue as he’s reporting on some baseball development.   He spontaneously, excitedly adds nuggets of information as he updates his television audience. 

Like many New Englanders, I was lucky enough to read Gammons’  Sunday notes column in the Sunday edition of the Boston Globe years ago.  I would pounce on that section eager to learn of any news tidbits or developments impacting the Red Sox.    Red Sox fans grew accustomed to Gammons’ strengths, which, to this day, stand out in a world of sportswriting that may be technologically advanced, but is often lacking a thoroughness or originality.

First, Gammons has always been a damned good reporter on baseball.   He always found out FAR more than other reporters.  To say he “got more scoops” would be the understatement of the century.  I don’t think I can identify any other reporter who has covered one of the major sports who has so consistently out-reported his peers by such a large margin.

For Gammons, that superlative reporting has always applied to the Red Sox.  Because Gammons got his start on the Boston Globe and is from this area, he always has made it his business to keep his first-hand knowledge of the Sox at the highest level.   He used to share his insights and updates about the struggles of Red Sox management, the players and their farm system.   

 What’s remarkable is that while at ESPN reporting on all of baseball, Gammons OFTEN – and, I mean, a countless number of occasions  - has reported original material on the Red Sox, routinely  ”scooping” the baseball writers from the Globe, Boston Herald and all other Boston media.

 One example, in recent years, illustrates this:  Gammons once reported that Sox’ Japanese pitcher Daisuke Matsuzaka had found it difficult to grip and throw the baseball in the US because it was a bit larger than the baseball in Japan.   This was fascinating, important news to any Red Sox fan, but, I didn’t find anyone but Gammons providing this information.   Another time, Gammons quoted Sox pitching coach John Farrell as saying that he and Dice-K had decided he should use less of his many different pitches in order to be more effective.  

This typifies Gammons’ contributions.  He ventures into areas that no other reporters even attempt to go.  He’s the one who doesn’t let important ground go uncovered while others sit back and add nothing. 

As the years have passed, I’ve realized the extent to which Gammons has built and maintained such a rich array of sources.  I think he’s been able to maintain those sources partly because of the kind of person he is.  People like and respect him.  They know he loves baseball, and, they enjoy opening up to him.  Gammons has sources at every level — whether it’s GMs, pitching coaches, scouts or guys familiar with who’s coming up at the Cape Cod League.

Of course, I’ve noticed Gammons’ flaws and mistakes over time, also.  I think he’s chosen to be a bit easy on some of the steroid abusers, for example.  On occasion, he wrote endlessly about a few hot Red Sox prospects, who eventually didn’t make it in the big leagues.  (Frank Rodriguez comes to mind)  Sometimes, I think Gammons has gotten so close to a few players that it distorted his capacity to report objectively on them.  (Alex Rodriguez, for example, who chose to speak to Gammons first to admit his use of steroids)  Sometimes Gammons has seemed to reverse himself rather dramatically on certain people in baseball.  (Dan Duquette, for example)

Sometimes, I’ve wondered how Gammons can avoid being overly influenced by his apparent close relationships with Sox GM Theo Epstein or Yanks GM Brian Cashman.  How can he report objectively on the Sox and Yanks?  I’ve wondered.  Yet, in the end, when I consider Gammons’ contributions, his flaws or mistakes are ridiculously overshadowed. 

Once in the late 1980s, as my brother and I were leaving Fenway Park after the Red Sox had lost a close game, by chance, we found ourselves walking in proximity to Gammons, who was heading out himself – probably on his way to interview a ball player.  My brother spontaneously asked him what he thought about how the game ended.   Gammons, without a moment’s hesitation, made a spontaneous, specific remark about closer Lee Smith’s inability to throw inside.   Then, he disappeared into the crowd.  I recalled thinking:  “Gammons was just as intense and enthusiastic then as he is on television.”

Gammons has always pursued the details about baseball.   Often, unsurprisingly, Gammons has shared his expertise about pitchers, commenting on how or why a pitcher was effective or ineffective in a big playoff game, for instance.   It’s the details, after all, that make baseball so fun to follow.

I can think of times I’ve waited in my car, in the parking lot at the grocery store before going in just so I could hear Gammons’ guest spot on a radio sports talk show.  “I’ve got to hear Gammons,” I’d tell my daughter, who eventually realized that the “Gammons” name had special meaning

Now, Gammons is so respected that his colleagues openly defer to him whenever a major development unfolds in baseball.   Everyone wants to know:   “What does Peter think?”

Gammons has reached that status through a lot of hard work, and, he’s someone who deserves it.

I am fortunate that I’ll see Gammons frequently on NESN in 2010.  We need more sportswriters like him.

AJ: Talent and Effort Blur Together

First, let’s get closure on Javier Vazquez, Big Mike.   I think he’s a good pitcher.   As I said, I’m worried he might do quite well on the Yankees.  I think we were debating, partly, whether he might have been able to excell even more as a pitcher until now - and, why, or why not, and, as you asked:  why even ask that question?  We covered these for now.

Second, I agree with you main premise about how few real ace pitchers have existed.   The kind, as you wrote, like Greg Maddux, who performed at a excellent level year in and year out.   When I just tried to think of pitchers who had great seasons several years in a row, or, even ten years in a row, the list quickly dwindled down to a few.   I’d list Roger Clemens, despite his having a few average seasons, but, with his apparent use of steroids or other drugs, his record is tainted.  Had he not done steroids, I used to consider him the best pitcher in the history of baseball simply on the basis of having many more Cy Young Awards – and the consistency and excellence that went with most of those. But, as you alluded to, your mind goes to the great pitchers who were on top for a few seasons.  Of course, because I loved Pedro Martinez, I can’t be objective, but, I do believe his outstanding seasons were so special and dominant that he’s in a category of his own…..but, I admit, Sandy Koufaz, dazzled everyone for several brief seasons and vanished — similarly to Pedro.

What’s so easy to do is rattle off the pitchers who have stellar seasons, then fade for a while, or, get injured, or, are never the same.  I thought of Jeremy Bonderman on the Tigers.  God did he look sharp mowing down the Yankees in the playoffs back in 2006 or whenever it was.  Since then, he hasn’ t been the same due to injuries.  His teammate, Justin Verlander, looked like his old self a bit this year, but, after struggling in the previous two years, I believe, partly due to arm troubles too, right?  I won’t go thru the list, but it makes you realize that for a pitcher to be like Maddux, you have to have the talent, the effort – including terrific “laser” focus on the mound – and, the luck to pull it off.

Our exchange reminded me of a closely related topic:  what  about the position players with good ability who are not superstars – but, above average – and, through hard work and a positive attitude - improve and become nearly as valuable to their team as a superstar?  I’m talking about a guy like Kevin Youkilis on the Red  Sox.  Scouts noticed Youkilis in the minors and noticed his patience at the plate (he got the “The Greek God of Walks” nickname in “Moneyball.”)  Yet, no one speculated just how good Youkilis would become after his first few years starting in the big leagues.  I think he’s the best hitter on the team now.  He can hit for power and contact.  He’s got an incredible eye and walks a lot.  He fouls off pitches in Johnny Damon style.  He’s made himself a star, in essence.

I raise Youkilis because, to me, it relates back to some of the Javier Vazquez questions we just debated.   Again, the fact that Youkilis surprised people around Boston with how quickly he improved was an exciting, interesting story.   Dustin Pedroia wasn’t expected to be good enough to win “Rookie of the Year” and then earn the “Most Valuable Player” award, either.   He’s another guy who seemed to improve quickly, but, I think, in retrospect, he just started a bit slowly in his first year.  Though he’s very short, and has a big sweeping swing for a guy his size, he’s got tremendous confidence and a chip on his shoulder.   Pedroia is not a classic “star” but a good guy to have on your team.

Let’s face it:  Sometimes, we cannot identify the fine line between talent and effort.   Sometimes, I may not care, but, for baseball lunatics like you and me, it’s a topic of interest.   I recall when Fred Lynn was on the Red Sox in the 1970s, some people wondered if was a bit too “casual” or if he worked hard enough.  He was from California, so some fans felt Freddy might have more  of a beach or surfing mentality.  It was quite ludicrous.   Lynn seemed to play hard to me.  In fact, he got hurt banging into the hard centerfield wall at Fenway Park more than once.

Then, this exchange gets me thinking about what Larry Bird used to say about Kevin McHale back in the 1980s when the two of them were on that great Celtic team that won three championships in the 80s.  Bird was convinced that McHale could’ve been even better – if he just worked on his game more and got more serious about it.   McHale, meanwhile, had evolved into one of the best players in the NBA on offense and defense, so, he didn’t seem to have a lot of “improving” to do.  Bird harped on this – and it’s a point that got repeated for years.   Bird practiced with McHale.  Maybe he was at least right, in some tiny way.    But, I bring the example up to illustrate how subjective and complex this topic is of “Is the player meeting his full potential?”   What does it really mean?  I think it gets noticed and discussed when the talent appearas EXTREME, but, for every one player like that, there are 200 other players wrestling with the same questions season to season:   How can I get better?

In the meantime, for we baseball observers, the degree of talent we see in a player vs. the degree of effort is often in the eye of the beholder.

Big Mike: Not The Valedictorian But Still Among The Best

Excellent point, AJ. And I completely agree with you that the gray is invariably far more fascinating than the black and white.

That said, I still have a lot of trouble with people labeling players in any professional sport “underachievers.” First, let me admit right off the bat that I have a personal reason for feeling this way. Throughout my entire school career, I was labeled an underachiever. I should have been a straight-A student, according to teachers, counselors and a couple of adults with whom I shared a roof. What they never could understand was that I didn’t give a shit about getting A’s, I wasn’t competitive in any way, and I was mostly bored with the crap they spewed out in just about every class. Let me give you one example: it wasn’t until I was in freshman year of high school that a teacher breathed a word about any black American other than George Washington Carver contributing anything to this nation’s development.

Now Carver, no doubt, was a nice and noble man who did a lot of things with the peanut, but even at the ages of 11 and 12, I knew my teachers and textbooks were feeding me white-washed, sanitized horseshit and calling it a wholesome meal.

I read what I wanted (which was rarely what my teachers wanted) and schooled myself. Plus, I had no interest in doing homework after I’d already devoted six good hours of my day to listen to schoolteachers’ blather.

So, in retrospect, was I a disappointment to the educational system or was it a disappointment to me. My simple answer is it failed me. So the educational system was the real underachiever, no?

Alright, major league baseball has a very simple criterion for achievement: does the player help his team win ballgames? Now, here’s a simple — bordering on simplistic — gauge of whether Javier Vazquez helps his teams win games. His won-lost record over his 12-year career is 142-139 for a .505 winning percentage. Alright, what was the cumulative record of all the teams he played for? His Expos, Yankees, Diamondbacks, White Sox and Braves teams went 949-996 for a winning percentage of .488.

In other words, with Vazquez on the hill, his teams could expect to win a minimum of three extra games a year, on average, compared to having a run-of-the-mill pitcher out there. That’s a significant bump up. Not the bump an ace would give you, but if I had five Vazquez’s in my rotation, all other things being equal, I’d win about 95 games. I’d take it!

But, of course, that’s only mathematical legerdemain. You say you’ve seen him with electric stuff and impeccable command. Then, next time out he might be battered like a red-headed stepchild. You ask why. The answer lies in issues like pain tolerance (we’ve touched on this before), ability to focus, knowledge of hitters, conditions, ballparks, and even time of day. Then there’s seeming minutia like the texture of the skin on his fingertips and the condition of his fingernails, both of which play large roles in a pitcher’s ability to throw electric stuff on any given day. And what about his emotional composure? Did he have an fight with his wife? Is he juggling mistresses? Are his finances screwed up?

All those things and many more go into the ability of a pitcher to be at his top form both mentally and physically.

In all the years I’ve watched baseball only one human being has been able to master all those contingencies and vagaries every time out, every year of his career. That was Greg Maddux. The man was a pitching savant and a machine. He was the ace of aces who was also lucky never to be injured. He never had to try to maintain or change his mechanics due to a sore arm or a pulled groin.

Alas, there was only one Greg Maddux. Even his peers — Clemens, Johnson and Pedro — had some clunker seasons mixed in with their overall Hall of Fame years.

No, Vazquez is not an ace. Then again, neither was Clemens every single year from 1986 until he retired. What he is is a darned good major league pitcher. There are only 300 major league pitchers. Some 60 percent of them, or 180, are relievers, therefore he’s automatically better than them (it’s true — if a reliever was as good as a starter, he’d be a starter). As a rotation guy, Vazquez has been in the number two or three slot pretty much wherever he’s pitched. That means he’s better than another two thirds of the remaining pitchers. So, all in all, he can be considered one of the top 40 pitchers in baseball.

Again I have to ask, assuming that if he were on your team you’d be worried about him, why?

AJ: You’re Missing My Point, Big Mike

Big Mike, I can accept that Javier Vazquez is not an ace, but, I also can be fascinated about why he hasn’t become one.  I don’t just analyze concrete realities, but, try to imagine how players or teams might change or improve.  It’s a lot more interesting that way.

In the case of Vazquez, he’s been oozing with enough talent through the years that he’s left many more observers than one Peter Ajemian to wonder why he couldn’t dazzle hitters even more often.

In fact, as I was writing the blog and had chosen to label Vazquez “an enigma,” I looked up an article on him in The Hardball Times, to check on his pitching repertoire.  The article was headlined,” The enigma that is Javier Vazquez”  I felt reinforcement when I read that others had wondered why his talent hadn’t taken him further.   It’s not that I was complaining he had not met some “standard;” but, rather, “How can a guy with so much rich talent NOT become more of a star pitcher?”

To tell you the truth, these are the kind of topics that make me love baseball.  The details.  How did CC Sabathia make an adjustment on one of his pitches last summer so that it helped make him much more effective?

How did Red Sox closer Keith Foulke, with only two pitches,  use a little “tic” in his motion — hesitating a split second before he uncorked the ball – keep hitters off balance enough to excell in 2004 and help the Sox go all the way?  Foulke’s fastball was average.  His changeup was good, but, many – including myself – believe that that tiny hesitation move was the KEY to his success

How could Derek Lowe have a fairly mediocre 2004 season, and then pitch three consecutive fantastic games in the 2004 playoffs for the Red Sox?  He’s a good “adrenalin” pitcher, but, why was he good at that and other pitchers choke under pressure?

I’ve always been more fascinated by the cases involving when pitchers or other athletes HAVE the talent and seem poised to keep rising up, but, just can’t do it, often for psychological reasons or quirky things.  Remember Jose Contreras, the star pitcher from Cuba who the Yanks and Sox wildy competed for?  When he got to the Yanks, he was SO UP and DOWN – often within the same game!  He’d pitch brilliantly for three or four innings and record eight strikouts, and, then he’d walk a couple of guys in the next inning and start to unravel — very badly – and he’ d be out of the game.

Now, Big Mike, maybe you don’t care about a pitcher like that — and you’d say:  “That’s baseball….He did the best he could….He was just erratic..”

What makes a pitcher or a player get to the next level?  Those more complex, intangibles are often interesting.  Take Joba Chamberlain on the Yanks.  I can’t stand him, but I think he’s very talented.  Yet, it’s unclear, even after a couple years, if this guy is going to use his potential or perhaps be distracted and squander it.   

It’s details that often make a real difference in what happens to a pitcher.  He might get a new pitching coach and start to thrive by incorporating a new pitch or two.  He might just need more reassurance.

I can use Clay Buccholz on the Red Sox as another example.  He’s got loads of talent – a killer changeup, excellent curve, and good fastball.  He pitched a no-hitter during his first call-up during the 2007 season.  Then, in 2008, Buchholz joined the rotation, and, after he lost a few games, he became very inconsistent and had a lousy season.  He, clearly, had lost his confidence.

Some fans were ready to give up on him before 2009, but, he, when he got called up that time, he performed much better and, now he’s slated to be in the 2010 rotation.  No one – still – knows if he’ll become a star pitcher or a more average pitcher like Javier Vazquez, but, it’s fun and fascinating to see how it comes out.   What might help him improve or be stymied?

It’s the gray that’s often more interesting than the black and white, Big Mike.

Big Mike: Why Isn’t Javier Vazquez An Ace?

My question, AJ, is why must we insist Vazquez is an “enigma” and “underperforming” when he’s been a solid major league pitcher for 10 years?

Why do you feel that he should be an ace? You say he has great stuff but he often leaves pitches out over the plate. All I can say is that’s why he hasn’t been an ace. An ace leaves fewer pitches out over the plate — simple as that.

Basically you’re saying Vazquez should be better than he has been because, well, you want him to be. Maybe the fault lies in your unrealistic expectations of him.

Vazquez isn’t an ace — that’s that. Here’s my take on who should be an ace — anybody who pitches like an ace! It’s the result that should define the player, not the expectation. Any kid who comes up and pitches competently in the major leagues has succeeded, as far as I’m concerned. Dozens of kids come up each year, throwing heat, breaking curves off the table. How many of them go on to become dependable starting pitchers? Not many at all. Javier Vazquez did.

The most ludicrous example of this sort of tut-tutting disappointment in players not living up to some standard that people set for them was Mickey Mantle. When he died, his obituaries were filled with quotes by sportswriters and fans pontificating that he wasted so much natural talent. If only he wouldn’t have gone out drinking and whoring all the time, they moaned.

Jesus Christ, what did they expect Mickey Mantle to do? The man was one of the top two players in the game from the early 50s through the mid 60s, along with Willie Mays. He ran like the wind, caught everything in sight, hit homers, hit singles, stole bases, won a Triple Crown, was named MVP three times (and should have won five or six times), was constantly on base, was a fierce competitor…, man, maybe he should have flown to the moon under his own power too!

Anyway, I’m sure Vazquez is going to get pounded a few times next season. Yankees fans will tear him to shreds. But he’s also going to shut down just as many teams, and you know what Yankees fans are going to say? Why doesn’t he do that every game?

My answer: because he can’t. That’s why they play the game — to find out who can and who can’t.

AJ: Hoping Vazquez Keeps Underperforming

God, I hope you are wrong about Javier Vazquez, Big Mike.

Yeah, I think it was probably another good decision by Yanks’ GM Brian Cashman to give Vazquez another try in New York, particularly given how well Vazquez pitched for the Braves last year.   On the other hand, Vazquez – given his great “stuff” – has underperformed for much of his 12-year career as a pitcher, in my view.  So,  despite the baseball pundits heaping praise on the Yanks and all assuming he’ll pitch outstandingly in 2010, I think he’s far from a “sure thing.”

You must agree with me, Big Mike, that Vazquez, as such a talented pitcher, has been sort of a typical pitching enigma for much of his career.    Why hasn’t he been a 20-game winner at least once?  Or, just posted records that are more “outstanding” rather than “average” — which is what he has done over most of his 12 years?   What happened to him on the White Sox?  I believe Ozzie Guillen might’ve been over-critical of him, but his W-L records there of 11 – 12, 15 – 8 and 12 – 16 seem to typify his career.  (I know his won-loss record is only one measure)

I remember, back in 2004, when I first saw him pitch for the Yankees.  He looked like a stud.  He seemed  unhittable at times.  He has a fastball that moves, a first-rate changeup, a slider and a curve.   What I recall about Vazquez is that when he was “on,” he pitched like a true ace.  His main problem against the Red Sox, including in the 2004 ACLS, is that he threw too many “mistake pitches” – balls that he just left out over the plate out of the blue.   The Red Sox have usually had a number of hitters who rip “mistake pitches” – just like Johnny Damon tagged Vazquez for two home runs in Game 7 of the 2004 ACLS.

If you look at Vazquez’ pitching stats, you remain confused why he hasn’t posted more wins.  He has ended five seasons with more than 200 strikeouts and his “batting average against” stats have been good.  He’s won 15 games or more only twice out of his 12 years – once in 2001, when he finished 16-11 for Montreal, and, then, last year, with his 15-10 record for the Braves.

So, if Vazquez finds his groove in 2010, he may help the Yanks win another title, but, I would think that it’d be hard to shake his old inconsistent habits in the American League East.  

Javier Vazquez is an enigma, partly because he hasn’t yet emerged as one of the best pitchers in baseball.  I hope he remains an enigma – as a guy who keeps struggling as an average pitcher – despite fantastic talent – for the Yankees.

Big Mike: Bad News For The Bosox

Goes to show how quickly the environment can change in baseball, AJ. You ask me about the possibility of Melky Cabrera coming to the Cubs and before I can type a word, the Yanks send him to Atlanta for Javier Vazquez.

So, here’s my take on that. You’re going to hate this acquisition even more than either CC Sabathia or Mark Teixeira. Here’s why: Vazquez, whom I’ve always felt is underrated (especially by Ozzie Guillen, who considered him a softie), will make the Bronx rotation almost prohibitively deep. It’s one thing to say you’ve got an ace or two. But in a three game series, even the worst team in the league hopes it can eke one out against one of those aces and then have a good chance to take the series by clobbering a second-rate starter. Now, no opponent has the luxury of such optimism against the Yankees.

By the way, it looks like Frank Wren and the Braves got a real steal in Arodys Vizcaino. I assume Brian Cashman is comfortable with the supply of young arms in the pipeline because Vizcaino seemed to be an untouchable. He’s only 19 but he throws in the high-90s and has a monster curve. His slider is hot, too. He strikes out over a batter an inning and is nearly impossible to hit. Sure, he’s been pitching against minor leaguers but he’s been working against guys two and three years older than he is.

Vizcaino reminds me of no one so much as an equally young Kerry Wood back in 1996. Of course, we all know what happened to Wood, so maybe that’s why Cashman figured he could sacrifice the kid for an established major leaguer.

Anyway, the next big baseball story will be how MLB tries to rein the Yankees in. MLB right now is as close to a free micro-market as there is. But, as the NFL has demonstrated, real economic health arises from a highly-regulated market. Baltimore, Minnesota and Pittsburgh will all be for some kind of check on the Yankees’ spending and a reasonable equalization of revenues but both the Steinbrenner mob and the Players Association will fight those proposals with everything they’ve got.

Then again, Fox and TBS love having the Yankees in the post-season year after tedious year. The networks’ business model has New York in the playoffs eternally, the Goliath taking on all comers, and even when — every three or four years — some David like Tampa Bay or San Francisco manages to slay the giant, well, that’ll bring in enormous ratings too.

Here’s my advice to you, AJ. Don’t expect or even hope for Theo and the boys to ever try to be better than the Yankees. It’ll never happen under the current set-up. He has to plan to be a 90-95 win team, make the playoffs and hope his starters get hot. You’re going to have to be content with having the chance to win the odd World Series every five years or so — the Yanks are going to win the rest of them.

AJ: More Proof of Yankees’ Elite Spending Status

The New York Yankees will have to pay a “luxury tax” of nearly $25.69 million because their payroll exceeded the average annual values of teams’ contracts for players on 40-man rosters plus benefits, according to a Dec. 21st  Associated Press (AP) story. 

The Yankees are the only team to pay this tax for 2009 and have spent more than the threshold in all seven years since the luxury tax was instituted.  The collection of teams’ luxury taxes is then used to pay “revenue sharing” funds back to all the other teams – with the idea of promoting at least a limited degree of parity.

Think about this:  Since 2003, the Yankees have been billed $174 of the $190 million total in luxury taxes that have been applied to all teams in Major League Baseball.   Only three other teams have paid luxury taxes:  The Red Sox paid $13.9 million for 2004 – 07;  the Tigers paid $1.3 million for 2008, and the Angels paid $927,059 for 2004, the AP reported.

The Yankees’ payroll for luxury tax purposes was $226.2 million, but its regular 2009 payroll was $2.5 million less than its 2008 payroll.   Yet, the Yankees’ 2009 payroll was still “$77.8 million higher than any other team – a gap larger than the payrolls of the bottom 11 clubs…”

OK, I admit it, I’m re-stating this AP story because it documents the gap between the Yankees and the Red Sox and puts the Yanks’ overall gap with other teams in perspective.   I’m sick of people trying to argue that the Red Sox are in the same league as the Yankees.  They are up there, but, they’re still not as close to the Evil Empire as people think. 

While I’m poking fun at the Bombers, I believe they’ll be hurt substantially by the loss of Hideki Matsui, and, particularly, Johnny Damon, who appears unlikely to re-sign with the Yanks now.   Both provided unique skills and clutch hitting ability that will be missed, forcing a heavier hitting burden onto Derek Jeter, Mark Teixeira, and Alex Rodriguez.

Meanwhile, I just read a NY Daily News article speculating that the Cubs might want to talk to the Yanks about getting either Yanks centerfielder Melky Cabrera or Brett Gardner, another outfielder.   I wonder what Big Mike thinks about that possibility.  I’ve always thought Melky Cabrera was a bit under-rated and might thrive on another ballclub in another city, where he might play a more central role on the team.