I think you are way off on the "real Yankee" comment. I am a real Yankee fan and think Arod is a real Yankee player. I am not sure what gives anyone the right to determine that someone isn't "real", so I think I'll stay away from such an arrogant pursuit.

As for being a jackass, was O'Neill one of those for his frequent tantrums? Many people seemed to think so. Does that mean he wasn't a real Yankee?

I think "ha-gate" and "real yankee" status are two separate issues. I am willing to accept the broad notion that some players are more "real Yankees" than others (frankly, I don't consider Reggie Jackson a real yankee, and thought his number should hot have been retired after only five years on teh team; Mattingly, Munson, Di Maggio, etc I think of as real yankees).

Now, regardless of whether A-Rod is a real yankee, was his hah "bush league" or in violation of the "uwritten rules." I personaly don't think so, but maybe all the hue and cry suggets I am wrong. If what he did was so wrong, couldn't MLB just solve the problem by adding a simple rule, like: "A base runner may not intentionally interfere with a fielder, either physically or verbally. In such a case, the runner shall be declared out and the batter awarded first base."

1 I agree. It seems like the whole "real/true Yankee" debate is centered around A-Rod and didn't even exist before he came to the Yankees.

The guy works harder than anyone else on the team. He's one of the best players of all time. What more can you ask for?

The thought of the Tampa faction regaining control of the team sends shivers down my spine

Why is it that sportwriters (you included Will) feel this constant need to weigh in with the psychoanalying of A-Rod? Last year was one thing as it was at least somewhat tied to his performance. But now? The guy rebounded well and yet professional writers still feel the need to offer personal critiques.

It's just weird. I understand the drama is interesting to a subset of fans, but don't we watch sports to see what happens on the field? And the biggest story of A-Rod's week (the Boston clutch job) isn't even mentioned above.

Double weird.

I get that fact that many sportwriters don't like A-Rod (Abraham has said as much). But the constant stream of words about him that have little to do with his actual performance suggests more than anything that many, many sportwriters (even the good ones) prefer the easy story to the thoughtful one. When you're paid by the word count, that's probably not a surprise. Too bad quality coverage is so hard to measure. But I know it when I see it. And when it comes to Arod, it's been sorely lacking or late.

5 Speaking of Abraham, are the comments on that site (by the author sometimes but especially by the readers) getting dumber by the day, or were they always dumb and now I am just reading more closely?

4 Indeed. Not good at all. That's the most unnerving thing about this year, to me: do the team's troubles to date provide an opening for Tampa to start reasserting themselves? I would not look forward to that crap-a-rific turn of events. Ugh.

6 I attempted to try posting there last night and was quickly overwhelmed by the stupidity/craziness there. Lots and lots of insightful and knowledgable comments like: "Matt DeSalvo should be in single A," and "we should get Shea Hillenbrand..." yug...

4 I'm sure Bill Madden would love to see that happen, since it was the Tampa faction that were his primary sources over the years. But what are the chances of Levine and Trost, much less Cashman, letting that happen? If it does, someone tell me where I can send a nasty letter to Steve Swindal for screwing us all over.

6 I haven't read the comments section at LoHud since last summer. I thought they were getting pretty dumb at that point. Too much ranting, not enough facts.

0 Sorry Will, but IMHO Steve G. is right on the "true Yankee" thing. Its a load of crap, as far as I'm concerned, a meta story used to create content out of nothingness.

I also think its funny that John MacDonald, a non-descript middle infielder who's never played for the Yankees, is somehow an expert on what it means to be a Yankee - and an expert on what past Yankees would have done! Almost as funny as John Gibbons pointing out what is classy, and what isn't. Ted Lilly is on line 1 for you, John; Shea Hillenbrand is holding on line 2.

Billy Martin is a guy who fits the so-called "true Yankee" definition better than almost anyone. And as Mr. A. Belth himself said, Billy the Kid certainly would have applauded A-Rod's HA. Nothing more to see here, move along.

9 Also, Billy would have been seen being escorted out of the Brass Rail (perhaps for inciting a brawl?) just as Arod walked in with that Blonde.

BTW, Buster Olney's blog says the Post and George King dispute Madden's claim about Hal:

http://tinyurl.com/3doy27 (link to Post article Buster linked too)

11 Well, if the Post and Daily News are disputing each other's claim, does that mean one of them ...has to be...right?

12 Watch Hank be the one who takes over, with Hal as second-in-command. =)

And you know what they say about a broken watch, or the sun and a dog's rear.

I just checked back into the lohud comments just to check yet again, and I went into convulsions almost immediatly. I strongly advise everyone on this site to stay as far away from there as humanly possible (if you can do that on the net?). Its really a scary place for baseball fans...

Maybe I just never noticed it before, but I always thought the phrase "true Yankee" was coined by the Red Sox when they celebrated their World Series win by bashing ARod.

2 I think the case of Reggie is a very telling one. Based upon the reasons that writers state as critical to making their "real yankee" or not decision, there's no way in hell Reggie should be considered in the light that he is. By all accounts he was a lousy teammate, loathed by many (including other stars on the team and the team captain), fought with teammates, fought with his manager, loafed in the field and ignored signs. In short, by most accounts, he was an insufferable prick and nearly the antithesis of that mystical "Yankee Way".

And yet, he's still widely considered a "real yankee", given a place in the organization and cheered by stadium crowds. Why? Not because he played the game with some special yankee integrity or purpose. But simply because he produced; on the biggest stage, in the biggest way and the Yankees won. In the end, that seems to be all that really matters. And all this canting by writers about "real yankee" character and how-you-play-the-game-the-yankee-way is just that, cant and subterfuge, an attempt to obscure the intrinsic inconsistency of their position.

I love seeing the contributions of other writers like Will and Emma here periodically, but I have to echo the others and say that I disagree with at least 70 percent of what Will wrote here. The obsession with A-Rod's behavior and this so called "behavioral line" that defines a true Yankee is pure silliness, in my opinion.

It is an arbitrary hammer that opposing fans and columnists like Mike Lupica use to hypocritically pass judgement on the "character" of the Yankees with all their free agent mercenaries...gleefully allowing them to celebrate the so-called limited success and moral failure of the Yankees as a team since 2000.

16 That was a very well-written response. Thanks for sharing it.

16 Adding to the problem is the infinitely malleable definition of "real Yankee." For me, I guess I use the term as a short hand for a player who stayed with the organization a long time--preferrable a product of the farm system, but not necessarily--who was at least good if not great. Basically, a player who is/was a human face of the organization. The kind of player when someone says: "remember the Yankees when we were kids?" You respond: "Willie Randolf, Ron Guidry, etc." In other words, it's about historical associations for me, and not about whether this or that player is "worthy" of his pinstripes or plays the game "the yankee way," etc.

I empathize with those of you who are sick about reading about anything that has to do with Alex Rodriguez off-the-field. I'm as guilty of pyschoanalyzing him as anyone else--actually Cliff doesn't go for that stuff at all. That said, Will's weekly column is about the NY media and Rodriguez's off-the-field, as well as the play in Toronto, got mad play in the papers last week.

18 thanks

And, to turn the conversation to something postive ... I can't be the only one here to think that Cano-biwan is about to go absolutely ape-shit on the league, am I?

I mean, that ball he hit off Okajima in Boston was just crushed (hit it way further than Ortiz did in the 9th in similar conditions) and last night he was 2 for 2, took 2 walks AND just about decapitated Jon Garland on his last hit

i think he's primed to go on a run like he did post-injury last year

0 By the way, that graphic was since 2000, and is detailed here:

http://tinyurl.com/2bxkhx

This got me thinking: while it's certainly possible that the ESPN guy who made the graphic did the research on his own or used Elias.... what if the ESPN guy who made that graphic got his information from SG? Would the folks at ESPN feel any obligation at all to identify the source of original research when it comes from blogs?

Sure it was a different era -- one where reporters, ah, "declined" to write certain stories, but there is still the tale of the Babe chasing a naked women through the railroad car full of reporters. What's Alex supposed to do, be a hermit? If he goes to Central Park it gets splashed on the front pages. To me, it just shows the sorry state of news reporting these days; I could not care less about A-Rod's off the field behavior -- as long as he doesn't show up to play while hung over, a la Boomer and Mickey Mantle. I think some reporters just want to get themselves ahead by cutting someone else down.

And he's even got Joe Morgan defending the "Ha!", that it happened when he played. Now, I'd never want Joe to manage my team, but I'll take the word of a HoFer about how the game is played over a nondescript player.

16 Very well said, indeed.

20 And I usually appreciate that perspective, Alex. But the exclamation point on the week was the clutch job. Even the News responded with a Ha! on the backpage. By weighing in on the "true Yankee" bit, Will opened himself up to criticism. But dancing around the clutch-Rod without mentioning it's signiicance sorta cemented my need to share criticism.

21 Cano: you are not the only one.
In fact, I would say the prevailing opinion at Bronx Banter, even last month, was that Cano would heat up with the weather. That's what he did last year.

One more note on Arod: Didn't the clutch job shut up alot of haters. Me, I look at it this way: he does nothing in the 9th, the Yanks lose, and everyone is pointing back to the pop up in the 7th (like Will does above) as somehow indicative of his non-clutchiness. Indeed, if you read the game thread here, it led to a whole digression of what type of hitter he is etc.

If I understand the whole brouhaha correctly...John McDonald is a true Yankee.

20 Thanks for the support, Alex. ... For the record, I'm sick of the topic also, but it would have been ridiculous of me not to weigh in on the coverage, since there was so much devoted to it, both good and bad. Regarding the "real Yankee" argument, whether it's b.s. or not, it has nothing to do with a personal opinion of A-Rod. It has everything to do with how he's carried himself since he's been here. People still like Reggie and consider him a "real Yankee" because he produced and he wasn't a phony. While he's had strong regular seasons, in the playoffs, A-Rod produced for a seven-game stretch in 2004 and that's it. Nothing since. I believe he is one of the most talented players I've ever seen, which is why as a baseball fan I'm disappointed to see, hear and read about the continuing drama that surrounds him. He doesn't need to shout at a third baseman to distract him from catching a pop-up, or elbow a shortstop in the jock as he's coming up out of a slide to break up a double play. I'd love to see him just shut up, play hard and keep a low profile. If he produces fine, if not, so be it. He's in control of this situation, but it's becoming clearer that he gets off on this kind of publicity, which was the real gist of Madden's column. ... Like I said, the thing that bugged me was the incorrect headline, because I've experienced that first-hand and know the effects of it.

28 Will, readers of this blog are a little too geeky to be convinced by "in the playoffs, A-Rod produced for a seven-game stretch in 2004 and that's it." I mean, give us career post-season OPS compared to Reggie, or something.
Also, did Reggie Jackson "just shut up, play hard and keep a low profile"? My memory must be awful.

"it's becoming clearer that he gets off on this kind of publicity"

There's that psychoanalyzing again.

Me, I find it curious that most writers will sooner look for every other possible explanation than looking inward at their profession. That, to me, is what's notable regarding Marchman's column. And here you do the same, Will. It's got to be Arod rather than how he's covered.

I look no further than the contrast in the Lowell-on-Cano and Arod-on-Pedroia. Same exact play, same exact game situation. Yet, on the one hand Arod is lambasted for going to the "jock" (by players, fans, and the media), while Lowell is applauded for throwing a shoulder.

"I'd love to see him just shut up, play hard and keep a low profile"

The guy produced on Sunday when it mattered most, and it's like it doesn't exist in your world, Will.

The question is: Why does the Arod drama, rather than performance, "get you off"?

30 Be fair, Jim. As I understand it, Will's job is covering the media coverage, so you can't fault him for doing just that

28 "He doesn't need to shout at a third baseman to distract him from catching a pop-up, or elbow a shortstop in the jock as he's coming up out of a slide to break up a double play."

I'm just not buying it. Basically, the argument by extension is that crummy players get to play "dirty" and it's oK, because they are crummy--that shows they have grit or whatever. Or by greater extension, they should be allowed to cheat. But great players must be held to a high moral standard?

In any case, what does A-Rod's greatness have to do with the two plays that you cite? No matter how great a player he is, if he does not shout at the third basemen on a ball another player hit, there would have been an out. Indeed, one could turn the argument on its head and say one of the things that makes him an even greater player is his awareness on the field to give the whole team (that is, other batter/base runners) a greater chance at success. He therefore, in terms of the sports cliche, elevates the whole team.

I personally am more tired of all the machismo "unwritten rules" manliness nonsense that players and coaches go on about. If it's not in teh rules, it's fair game. If it's not fair, make a rule. Frankly, I think it's the obligation of a professional athlete to test the boundaries of the rules.

28 Except for a seven game stretch? How unfair is that? That's over a 1/3 of the Yankees post season games during Arod's tenure? I wonder what some "clutch" Yankee performers would look like if we took away the best 40% sample from their postseason records?

As for your statement that "he doesn't need to shout at a 3B", who is anyone to say what he does and doesn't need to do? As a "real fan", I think Arod, and all Yankees, need to do whatever it takes within the rules to win. This week alone, we've heard all-time greats like Morgan, Brett and Palmer state that what Arod did was common place when they played. So, who exactly is the arbiter on what is should and shouldn't be done on the field?

The fact of the matter is Arod HAD produced more than any Yankee over his tenure. I could careless whether he gets off on the publicity or not. Like it or not, passing judgment on who is a "real Yankee" is the expression of a personal opinion because their is no way you can suggest it is objective fact.

32 er, "higher moral standard."

31 It's not an objective analysis - it's slanted by his own personal biases. He's hammered that home in 20. I'd love to know why. Why does Arod produce this grossly distorted perspective when it comes to his coverage? If Will could answer that, then this post would have been a contribution. Instead, it's just more of the same: "Why I don't like Arod". Only Arod gets this treatment. Why? Unfortunately, it's not as simple as "he brings it on himself". Shoot, Will, you have Arod wanting to get caught with a stripper. You know that how, exactly?

I do appreciate the Marchmand piece. First thought provoking perspective on the topic I've read in a long time.

33 There...not their...I detest that mistake!

35 I posted this on a game thread a few days ago, but I was listening to the Red Sox feed (and this is not a slam on the Sox--it really doesn't matter who the announcers were) and in the course of about forty-five seconds they both conclsuded that A-Rod likes to bring all of the negative attention on himself because he craves the spotlight AND he was going to use the negative attention as a justification to justify his out clause and leave New York to get out of the spotlight!

You're right--the real story is why A-Rod, who as far I know has never been associated with steroid rumours, works very hard, is about as talented as anyone in his generation, etc.--why he seems to cause such pathological reactions by fans/media types.

OK, I'm going to run with what Will said, because to some degree, the psychoanalysis can be interesting -- at least in the past, it was. Such an obviously talented player who wore his insecurities on his sleeve, who managed the media so poorly, who seemed to have mixed relationships with his teammates despite his abundant talent.

Like many others, I just wanted ARod to shut up, because it seemed like whenever he opened his mouth, it created problems.

Well this year, he has mostly kept his mouth shut. Not only that, but with controversial plays like the Pedroia slide or the "Ha!", he's mostly just said "hey, difference of opinion, let the media run with it, I'm done". Basically, he's tried to be more above all the BS, and his performance on the field, apart from a few bad stretches, has mostly reflected his obliviousness to other people's opinions of him.

The funny thing is that it's the Boston media who seems to understand this changed dynamic with A-Rod better than the NY media, and they've been the most complimentary of the good things he's done this year (one or two hatchet jobs aside).

But perhaps the NY reporters just cannot forgive A-Rod his idiosyncracies and his "phoniness", which is why they belittle his work ethic and on-field accomplishments, and focus on all the extracurricular stuff.

And of course, two pieces of reported facts buried in other stories:

1) US Weekly turned down the Arod photos. What does that say?

2) Arod and his wife frequent strip clubs together. What does that say?

How many of you knew both of these things? And don't they have a way of nicely rounding out what the coverage was all about?

If you said "Sales" you win!

38 Seriously, what the hell is going on with the NY media regarding Arod? And why does Will, as our resident experiment, have such difficulty nailing an answer? Instead, the massive groupthink has zombified him! Why, Will? Why?

resident expert

21 25 I also agree on Cano. Some guys just got off to slow starts every year - see Bernie Williams in April (career .774 OPS) versus every other month.

28 Will, I greatly appreciate your take on the media, particularly because you are a part of it, and you can give us an insider's perspective (like on the headlines). And you can't very well discuss NY media coverage without running smack into A-Rod.

On our side, we may be using you as a proxy for the rest of the media, and taking out our frustrations with the fish rags on you. We shouldn't; you aren't them, and all you are doing is shedding light on what they do. That's not a good thing; its a great thing.

All that said, when you said that you wish A-Rod would "just shut up, play hard and keep a low profile", I felt you were essentially asking him to be Derek Jeter - and repeating a sentiment that may of us expressed this offseason. The problem is that, even when A-Rod actually shuts up about something (like his relationship with Jeter), there is going to be something new to be talked about with him. Its the nature of the situation, and I don't think A-Rod can do anything to change it, anymore than Reggie could have back in his day.

32 "Frankly, I think it's the obligation of a professional athlete to test the boundaries of the rules."

John McGraw - maybe the best manager in MLB history - would agree with you. FWIW, I do too.

42 Shaun, he said 28 "it's becoming clearer that he gets off on this kind of publicity".

In that regard, he's made himself part of the story here rather than offering good reasoned analysis. The former is part of the problem

Thanks for trying to mediate. But he's no proxy. He's acting exactly in line with the thoughts of his peers.

37 I believe Joe Morgan, of all people, in his chat today answered your question. Here it is, without further comment, other than I'm still floored:

"Andy, Indy: What is it about A-Rod that makes everyone view/treat him the way they do? If Manny yelled at a thrid baseman people would just say "That's Manny being Manny." Why the negative reaction becasue it is A-Rod?

SportsNation Joe Morgan: The real reason is money. Public, players alike have been jealous that he got that big contract. He's been a target since that happened. I've stated before that it wasn't out of line what he did. We've seen runners hesitate when there's a grounder in front of them to distract the fielder. We have so many things that are more obvious than what A-Rod did. I said on the air the other day - if Eckstein had made that play, everyone would have said what a smart play. It was a bad play by the third baseman, he should have caught that ball." (emphasis mine)

Dedicated lurker here (hi, all!), thought I would throw my 2 cents in.

40 I wonder if it could have anything to do with why so many Yankee fans seem to hate him. I finally got a friend to explain it to me last year. She said, "I spent so long hating him because he was so good, and defending Jeter to all the people who said A-Rod was better, that it was just too hard to stop once he was on my team."

44 That may be part of it, but guys like Will and Pete and etc are all all jealous? That doesn't seem right.

It's like all the NY writers have huddled together and decided that they just don't like Arod. Why? What is it about him that irritates them so much? That he didn't take them out to dinner like Matsui? That he isn't a party animal (on the surface) like Giambi? What?

Marchman is first guy I've read that seems to have a handle on things, but even then he pegs the business more than the writers themselves. When Will is expressing his thoughts like above it obvious that it's a very personal dislike. Why?

20 I really try to block out the non-baseball stuff about A-Rod, but the NY tabloids really make it impossible...

I've got the HBO 'Mantle' documentary on in the background right now, and I'd be willing to bet money this guy would have demanded a trade had he played in 2007.

As I expect A-Rod to opt out as well - who in their right mind would want to put up with this nonsense for 4-5 more years?!

45 Welcome to non-lurking! That's a great addition to the discussion.

My mom had the same problem with Wade Boggs. "I'm not supposed to like him - he was a RED SOCK!" It does make sense. Its hard to like a guy after you've hated him for so long.

46 Joe didn't mention the writers, though. Joe mentioned the public and other players. I'm sure there are plenty of players who are jealous of A-Rod. I also know plenty of people in the 'public' who are jealous of A-Rod. I spent 40 minutes on the phone today with my old roommate, a smart guy (a doctor), arguing about A-Rod's "HA". Finally, when I said "How would you feel if Wright had done that?" (dude's a Mets fan), he finally admitted that maybe it wasn't so bad.

What did he bring up over and over? How much A-Rod is paid.

I don't think any of the writers dislike A-Rod on a professional level, or are any more jealous of him than they are jealous of any major leaguer. You'd think if they were jealous of anyone, it'd be Jeter, given his little black book.

No, what I sense from folks like Will and Pete Abe is more frustration with A-Rod than anything else. Given their jobs, that's entirely understandable.

45 Welcome to non-lurking! That's a great addition to the discussion.

My mom had the same problem with Wade Boggs. "I'm not supposed to like him - he was a RED SOCK!" It does make sense. Its hard to like a guy after you've hated him for so long.

46 Joe didn't mention the writers, though. Joe mentioned the public and other players. I'm sure there are plenty of players who are jealous of A-Rod. I also know plenty of people in the 'public' who are jealous of A-Rod. I spent 40 minutes on the phone today with my old roommate, a smart guy (a doctor), arguing about A-Rod's "HA". Finally, when I said "How would you feel if Wright had done that?" (dude's a Mets fan), he finally admitted that maybe it wasn't so bad.

What did he bring up over and over? How much A-Rod is paid.

I don't think any of the writers dislike A-Rod on a professional level, or are any more jealous of him than they are jealous of any major leaguer. You'd think if they were jealous of anyone, it'd be Jeter, given his little black book.

No, what I sense from folks like Will and Pete Abe is more frustration with A-Rod than anything else. Given their jobs, that's entirely understandable. Shoot, how many of us were frustrated with A-Rod (and his mishandling of the media) last year? I know I was.

Sorry for the double post. Whoops.

46 Speaking for myself, the reason I hold Arod to what many believe are are impossible standards is not his salary, but his billing.

The salary followed from the commonplace assessment of him as the best player in the game.

Those are some big shoes to fill, the poor man.

I frankly don't care about his antics, but rather his at-bats, the consistent quality of which imo leaves a lot to be desired for the best player in baseball. I see a hitter with a lot of room for improvement before I'd think of him as the best hitter in baseball.

Again, that's just my opinion, but of course it's informed by the fact that he came over here touted as such a flawless player. Because of that billing, his flaws are all the more striking.

Perhaps it's unjust and even irrational, but there it is.

48 Thanks for the welcome. This is the only board I've found that doesn't (usually) degenerate into "You're ugly and your mother dresses you funny" every time there's a disagreement.

No doubt the money's a huge part, as well. I was debating this with a very young co-worker not too long ago.

He said, "Since he makes so much money he should just do everything right all the time."

I asked if that meant, to follow his logic, that it was OK for police officers, firefighters, teachers, etc., to stink at their jobs since they don't get paid what they're worth.

His answer was, "No, they should just take some of his money and give it to them."

Well sure, in an ideal world....

Oh, and also, the other reason I'm generally rather lukewarm towards him is that he came over for Sori, an in-house guy whom I'd been watching develop for some time and hadn't quite made my peace with.

Part of me wanted him shipped out after watching him flail at all those sliders six feet off the plate and part of me felt duty-bound to stick it out with him, since he was "ours."

So to just discard someone with whom I'd had a real relationship to bring in a wringer upset me, especially since that wringer was "the best player in baseball," the latest of the Yankees' unimaginative, known-quantity acquisitions.

The whole deal just seemed unseemly to me, a kind of emblematic satire of why people hate the Yankees.

Given all that, the guy had to do a lot to win me over.

I love his swing, but I honestly can't say I look forward to his at-bats the way I look forward to, say, Cano's when he's hot. He's just not my kind of hitter.

These probably aren't the reasons most people have for not liking him, I understand, but that's my story.

49 The point is, Shaun, that frustration should be over with. Clearly the guy was adjusting to the NY spotlight last year. But the media response toward the end of the year and now this year shows it's something else. It died down but really has never gone away. Why?

Maybe Arod screws with them? I know I would after all the constant BS. However, instead of calling a truce the heat just gets turned up.

Is it really as simple Arod is a "phony" in their eyes?

I can just see it - all the writers laughing cause he got caught cheating. Meanwhile, if his wife frequents the joints with him, what does that say about their relationship?

Instead of "Man, I wish my wife was that cool" - it's "Oh, look at Arod and his wife pretending everything it okay."

Belch. Blah.

Lots of professionalism all around.

51 I don't think anyone seriously calls him the best hitter in the game. The best player (offense + defense) - yes.

Sorry Will, but I'm with the pack on this one. We do appreciate your perspective on the NY media train, but I think you're out of line and a couple of your statements flat out indicate your own bias against him. Holding up people like Gibbons and McDonald as the guardians of "Yankee Class" is a weak argument and the logic of "crappy players can do it but great ones can't" totally escapes me.

Bottom line: he might have ensured a W on that night and I don't really care how he did it.

Not your best effort.

53 Weeping: you're entitled to your opinion, but why did the A-Rod deal strike you as so unseemly? outbidding the universe for Giambi--that I can see. But the A-Rod deal was not a simple FA signing; it showed a degree of deftness: it was clear that Texas wanted to clear salary and so could not accept Boston's offer to swap Manny unless conditions that the union would not accept were added; A-Rod changed position; A-Rod was actually younger than the young player (Soriano) who was traded for him; Texas picked up a big chunk of salaray. Overall, I think this was one of the more seemly and clever Yankee moves in years.

55 Fair enough, Jim. I probably just inferred it from the "best player" designation.

I'm making my peace with the man, though. Having watched him for these few seasons, I have a much better sense of his strengths and weaknesses, and I'm getting better at taking him for who he is.

He was just so shrouded in myth when he came to us that there was a whole extra dimension to my assessment of him, one that's taken me a long time to get a hold of.

57 It was a fantastic deal. They got a very valuable player quite cheap (trade and eventual cash). And the young player they traded away (from a less important defensive position) was replaced about 14 months later.

58 "He was just so shrouded in myth when he came to us that there was a whole extra dimension to my assessment of him, one that's taken me a long time to get a hold of."

That's interesting, and I think I'm with you. Why do you think so? Is it as simple as all the Jeter comps over the years?

53 I was happy to get rid of Soriano. I never thought much of his attitude, judgmental as that may be. I'll admit, I never expected him to do so well in Washington last year - his Texas stats were largely a product of his ballpark. But I'm not surprised to see him slump drastically after sgning a big contract...

52 I agree with you. That doesn't change the fact that you're ugly and your mother dresses you funny.

59 Amazingly, it hadn't occurred to me until you mentioned it that Soriano would have been blocking Cano. Of course, Sori might have moved to the outfield.

57 Agree, monkeypants. It wasn't the financial or technical details of the deal itself I objected to, just the addition of yet another all-star slugger to a pretty loaded lineup.

As a player, he just didn't leave much to the imagination the way someone like Sori or Nick did because he was a known quantity and there was no risk at all in acquiring him.

It was a sensible deal, to be sure, just a boring one, imo.

I'd much rather watch a good player turn into a very good one, or even a great one, than I would watch a player who's already been declared great continue to be great. And again, my version of greatness is, for example, someone like Ortiz. He just never looks lost at the plate and seems much more like the kind of guy I'd want up in a big spot: he's never an easy out.

I don't know, my relationship to the game is very emotional and intuitive, and some kinds of players are just harder for me to get jazzed up about than others.

Give me the mystery of wondering what kind of player Nick Johnson can develop into any day.

Lest we forget:

The spring after Arod signed with Texas ESPN followed every AB. They gleefully reported each strikeout along with such strange things as "the Rangers have a better record in games Arod doesn't HR in than when he does!!"
The virulent anti Arod stuff abated quite a bit when he was assumed to be going to Boston for a few weeks before he ended up in NY (when it resumed with an even greater fury.)

I think the comments about Arod's postseason play is pretty revealing: why no mention of the fact that Jeter had a 566 OPS in the 2004 Boston series? Or the postseason numbers of most of the rest of the team since Arod came here? Arod has better numbers than almost every hitter on the team since he came here (and a lot better numbers than the guys a lot of people remember as "clutch in postseason" had from 96-2000) smacks of an agenda.

Why is the media going insane of importance to the Yankees playing baseball or Arod remaining on the team? They've gone after other people in the past (read the articles after Reggie's quote after he signed and then again after his near fight with Billy for a great example). He's, by far, been the MVP of the 2007 Yankees, but we'd be better off trading him? That's not smart.

62 Have you ever tried to buy clothes for a platypus :-p

66 "Why is the media going insane of importance to the Yankees playing baseball or Arod remaining on the team?"

I guess the simplest answer would be because we read it, and watch it, and buy the newspapers, and whatnot.

63 Remember, Cano was never considered a great prospect. Arizona passed on him in the RJ deal, and he was only given a chance reluctantly, after Tony Womack turned out to be, well, Tony Womack.

Wang was a very similar story - not highly prized, given a shot out of desperation when Jaret Wright got hurt. The day after his first start, Cliff's (I think) headline was, "If This Is Wang, I Don't Wanna Be Wright."

64 Oh, absolutely boring deal. That's Cashman's MO in my humble opinion. You've got Clemens 1.0, A-Rod, and Abreu - all the same types of deals. Acquire the overpriced star for below face value prices.

65 I can understand the trade logic especially if it netted Loney, Kemp, and/or LaRoche. But they'd be getting two above average youngsters for one superstar.

Still, you're exactly right to point out all the opt-out stories. As fans (if the writers are truly writing for us), why should we care? Instead it's like the writers see a chance to prove Arod is a phony. It's like they're counting down the days.

64 Weeping, I love Ortiz, but it's plain silly to say that he's "never an easy out" and "always has great at-bats". He strikes out more often than A-Rod does.

67 I'm not sure that Cano wasn't thought highly of - just as a light hitting 2B he didn't have much value, espcially not in contrast to a switch-hitting C (Navarro) and a young lefty arm (Halsey).

70 67 Maybe I am easily amused, but never thought this was a boring deal at all. The fact that A-Rod had to switch positions, and that it involved two superstar players (though obviously not of the same caliber) made this not only a blockbuster, but an intriguing one in my book. Boring would have been to sign Beltran to fill the obvious and glaring hole in CF.

72 well, you're right about that, not signing beltran and letting bernie play center certainly made for some interesting baseball. I'm not exactly sure what is was, but it sure wasn't boring ...

69 You may well be right, RI, it may be plain silly.

I often wonder if Boston fans are as afraid of Arod as I am of Ortiz/Manny and just can't see how they could be, but it's really subjective, of course.

Maybe it's just because I see Arod every day and not Ortiz, or that everytime Ortiz has a poor at-bat it seems the exception that proves the rule, I don't know.

Point taken, though.

Perhaps instead of Ortiz I could have said Mattingly in his prime?

He's the guy who looms in my imagination as always having been dangerous and always seeming to get the big hit.

Just my imagination at work is all, thanks (as always) for keeping me honest!

:)

Ortiz is scary, no doubt about it. That's why I was so happy when Mo got him on a long fly the other night.

New Thread! Let's head for the game, so to speak.

73 I think appearances have a lot to do with it. Ortiz looks so menacing, leaning over the plate and wagging his bat; Rodriguez looks calm and relaxed, without much movement, all the time. Ortiz swings hard, like Sheffield does; Rodriguez has a smooth swing and doesn't look like he's hammering the ball.

But damned if he doesn't hit them places no one else hits them.

I wonder if Joe Dimaggio was ever criticized for looking too perfect, for not looking like he was swinging hard. I've always heard that cited as part of his beauty as a player, but everyone seems to criticize it in Rodriguez.

60 I don't know, Jim. I think maybe it's just the designation as the greatest player in the game, with comparisons to the all-time greats.

Maybe the Jeter stuff played into it too.

75 Absolutlely, Arod's graceful swing is the part of his game that I do really admire.

As bad as Desalvo was, he should have been out the the 2nd inning with the 2 ground balls - AROD and Phelps butchered their plays and put the Bombers in a big hole. AROD's obviosly not the player we saw in April and needs a rest.

Although Boston is playing very well, they don't have the lineup to continue at this pace and I still believe the Yanks have a
great chance to catch them or the Tigers.