Bummer -- Hal Steinbrenner sez his family is not selling the Yankees

Hal (Rip Van Winkle) Steinbrenner has finally woken up from his winter snooze to talk to the press. Specifically, ESPN New York's Wally Matthews. And specifically, to say that he and his siblings are not selling the team, and will keep the team for the next generation of Steinbrenners. Oh goody -- another generation of people who were born on third base and think that they hit a triple running the team! I can't wait! (That's sarcasm, kidddies!)

Matthews talked to Prince Hal for an hour, and said at the end of his piece that he "can't help but like" Hal "and feel for" him. Feel for what, exactly? Because Steinbrenner had a tough father? Many people out there had tough fathers, but didn't inherit multi-billion dollar baseball teams, either. Boo bleeding hoo. This sounds like how the media gave Brian Cashman a pass for so many years because George yelled at him. Good grief.

There is no talk about the Yankees' ticket debacle (shocker!), but Matthews asked Steinbrenner about other things. Here are some of the most interesting tidbits from the story, and the questions I would like to ask Hal if I could:

"I'm not trying to be George," he says. "I never walked into this with the concept of trying to act like George, trying to be everything that George was, 'cause I can't."

No $#%^. Sherlock. Hey, Hal, we don't need you to be George. But we don't need you to be the exact opposite of George, either, where you won't do anything like hold people accountable for fear that somebody will think that you look like your father. Get over your childhood already. We'd all be a lot better off.

"George accomplished all this through his hard work. But for me, this is a privilege. It's a privilege in that I don't feel that I deserve to be the managing general partner of the New York Yankees."

That makes two of us, Hal!

And if my last name wasn't Steinbrenner, I wouldn't be managing general partner of the New York Yankees."

 Well, you do have at least *some* self-awareness!

He is strident, if not exactly passionate, about his role as managing general partner of the Yankees -- that is the description he uses, never "owner," and certainly never Boss -- but nowhere near as wound up as he gets when he talks about flying his airplanes, a GTO single-engine aircraft and a Cessna high-wing that he says he can land anywhere. It is a hobby he only took up in 2000. "That's what I do to get away from this," he said, pointing at his iPhone. "Go up to 2,000 feet and practice takeoffs and landings."...."It scared the hell out of my dad. He was always worried about it. But you know, there's nothing safe about driving on the interstate, either. You minimize the risk, you make sure your plane is in good shape, and you don't make poor choices, and it's a fairly safe thing to do." 

1. Can you go be general partner of a plane company, instead of a baseball team, the job you so desperately wants to "get away from"? We'd all be better off!

2. Paging Dr. Freud, but considering your father lost Thurman Munson when the Yankee captain died doing takeoffs and landing on his private plane, and considering your father then had clauses in Yankee players' contracts banning them from flying planes, you have to wonder how much your hobby has to do with sticking it to your dad.

He said he's never going to react to a loss, or a losing season, by firing someone. He understands his natural reserve tends to make fans believe he doesn't really care about the Yankees, at least not as much as his father did. "Even if I wanted to, I couldn't do that," he said. "I'm not going to try to be something that I'm not. I don't pretend to be as good as him in this role, and I wouldn't even try."

Hey Hal: You know, firing people when they fail at their jobs, year after year, is not only a George thing. It's kind of how the rest of baseball -- and the rest of the world -- works. But you're too busy playing Peter Pan to actually hold people accountable.

On who is ultimately to blame for the Yankees' recent failures: "Nothing is going to happen or not happen without me. So you can say it's [GM Brian] Cashman but I can tell you that Cash and I talk, and Hank and I talk, but again, the decision still falls on me. So if anyone wants to blame anybody they should throw me in there with Cashman, for goodness sakes."

Well, that's great, Hal. You won't fire Cashman. And we can't fire you. But we should keep on sucking it up and buying tickets, just because.

 On whether the Yankees will pay A-Rod the $6 million bonus for tying Babe Ruth's 714 home runs: "We'll see. We'll see. I think we have a much better relationship at this point in time to try to work something out. We'll figure something out. I wouldn't worry too much about that. I think it's going to be a different story this time around." 

Hal, given that 90% of your team's current marketing campaign that features today's players is about A-Rod, it would be kind of hard to avoid giving him this money. But I doubt you even know that, since you show about as much interest in the Yankees as I do in watching "Doctor Who." Oy.

Note to Yankee brass: When A-Rod outclasses you, perhaps you have gone too far

I had insomnia this evening, woke up in the middle of the night, and put on the replay of the Yankee game, just to see Alex Rodriguez's home run (I missed seeing it live, as I was out running.) Not only was it a game-winner homer against the Baltimore Orioles, but A-Rod got loud cheers, a standing ovation and even a curtain call. Hitting #661, as it turns out, even got mention on Yankee Stadium's big screen. Hmmmm. And the Yankees are still claiming that he is unmarketable? Puh-lease.

Anyhow, New York sportswriters are writing not just about the homer, and the win, but about the massive support A-Rod is getting from Yankee fans. The New York Daily News' John Harper wrote about all of the cheers A-Rod received last night, calling the "affection" even "more remarkable than his comeback itself."

Yes, A-Rod always longed for this type of love from Yankee fans, and it’s a bit odd that he’s finally the People’s Choice after being suspended all of last season for his use of PEDs. These fans loved nothing more than to boo A-Rod, except for the 2009 postseason and a few big-game performances here and there. Now, it’s almost as if with Jeter in retirement, they don’t feel guilty about cheering the anti-Jeter.

As an Arodologist (and Arodapologist!) over the years, I think A-Rod got more cheers than Harper is acknowledging. Even in the worst days, he always had some fans. But I do think Jeter's absence has something to do with this. The media no longer has to worry about kissing Jeter's tuchis by avoiding running anything positive about A-Rod. And Alex's teammates themselves no longer have to worry about offending the captain, either. (Newsflash: I don't think Rodriguez only became a good teammate in 2015! I think it's just that now that Jeter is gone, A-Rod can be treated as an elder statesman on the Yankees by both his teammates and the media.)

But Harper, like Joe Girardi, thinks Rodriguez's popularity now is only due to him hitting well again, and says "I doubt it" when positing that the fans are cheering Rodriguez to stick it to Yankees' ownership about their pettiness regarding fighting the milestone issue. I disagree with that, and instead agree with ESPN New York's Wally Matthews' (yes!) take on the issue. In an article entitled "Alex Rodriguez the winner in dispute with Yankees," he writes:

Whether it's right or wrong -- and again, only the Yankees, A-Rod and his representatives really know how the contract is written and if he has any claim to the money -- the fan perception seems to be that the Yankees have behaved badly in this matter, that their actions were forged in greed and are now colored by vindictiveness. They see Rodriguez as the victim here, even with his $275 million contract and a potential $30 million more tacked on simply for doing what he is already being paid to do, which is hit home runs.

But as we know, perception is reality, and if the fans perceive A-Rod is being bullied by the big, bad Yankees, that is going to be a tough perception to shake. And as long as Rodriguez continues to hit the way he's hitting -- his seven home runs, 18 RBI and .883 OPS are second on the team to Mark Teixeira's 10, 25 and .951 -- there's no way Hal Steinbrenner, Randy Levine and Brian Cashman stand a chance of reversing the tide.

Add in the fact that A-Rod has refused to be dragged into the mud -- he has yet to take a verbal misstep, despite plenty of bait -- and you've got a clear win for a player who, about a year ago, had some very respected baseball writers saying that he would never step on a big league ball field again.

In closing, Matthews says that  Rodriguez is "more than welcome" at Yankee Stadium: "He owns the place." He adds, "Not only have the Yankees succeeded in making Rodriguez popular again, they have even managed to make him something no one could ever have believed he could be. Sympathetic."

Um, Wally, I am raising my hand here. I believed this could happen! I am frequently wrong on stuff, -- for example, the Yankees are playing much better this year than I thought they would -- but I totally called that the A-Rod accolades would happen. This spring, when I was interviewed, along with other Yankee bloggers, by my friend and colleague Daniel Shoptaw, most of the bloggers were pessimistic on A-Rod's chances in 2015. Not me! Here is what I wrote then:

I am actually pretty optimistic about A-Rod, given his glorious spring so far. He seems in a good place, both mentally and physically. He has handled all of the hubbub about his return much better than expected. And remember that his 2013 OPS in just a month and a half of a season was still better than the entire team’s was in 2014. Another thing Alex has going for him is the soft bigotry of low expectations. All he needs to do is be halfway decent, stay halfway healthy, and not embarrass himself, and many fans will be on this side. There is a real “sticking it to the man” edge to rooting for Rodriguez this year, given how much the media and the Yankees management despise him. The irony is that the team’s biggest marketing asset, as far as putting fannies in the seats and getting people to tune in, is the very person they are claiming they can no longer market in their refusal to pay those home run milestone incentives.

Yet despite the fact that Rodriguez is clearly the Yankees' most popular player, they are still claiming that he isn't marketable. How petty. How sad. How short-sighted. Matthews is right -- A-Rod has won the battle. And he will win the war over 660, too. Pay the man already!

Was Brian Cashman for the Alfonso Soriano trade before he was against it?

What is Brian Cashman up to these days? Monitoring the New York media and reading columnists "the riot act" for not casting him in the most positive light is apparently a huge priority for him these days. (If only he monitored players for the MLB draft with such precision!)

Here's what I am talking about: I was pleasantly surprised this morning when I saw a Wallace Matthews Yankees' blog entry on ESPN New York. In a blog entry today entitled "First Pitch: Sori, Hal," Matthews wrote the following in the original version of the piece, noting how Cashman opposed trading for Alfonso Soriano:

This is what a lot of New York Yankees fans should be saying today: Sorry, Hal Steinbrenner, for criticizing the decision to bring Alfonso Soriano to the Yankees at the trade deadline. 

While we're at it, GM Brian Cashman might want to offer his apologies as well, after saying publicly that he was against the deal. 

Because now, a little more than a month into his second go-round with the Yankees, Soriano doesn't just look like a bargain, he looks like a steal. 

This evening, here's what the article looks like:

This is what a lot of New York Yankees fans should be saying today: Sorry, Hal Steinbrenner, for criticizing the decision to bring Alfonso Soriano to the Yankees at the trade deadline. 

Because now, a little more than a month into his second go-round with the Yankees, Soriano doesn't just look like a bargain, he looks like a steal. 

Notice that the middle paragraph is missing, and the fact that Cashman opposed the trade is gone from the column!

Instead of just putting the missing paragraph down the ol' memory hole, Matthews does explain the situation on Twitter:

For the record, Brian Cashman never said he was against the Soriano deal, only that he was against trading Corey Black. I apologize
— wallace matthews (@ESPNNYYankees) August 28, 2013

GM read me the riot act, and fair is fair. My bad in today's blog
— wallace matthews (@ESPNNYYankees) August 28, 2013

So I wrote the following on Twitter to Matthews: I linked to "Cashman anti-trade & overruled — again," Joel Sherman's July 27 New York Post column on Cashman, which I wrote about at the time, and said this:

@ESPNNYYankees Sounds like revisionist history on Cashman's part, especially given this article: http://t.co/qv6xhMnWeE
— Subway Squawkers (@subwaysquawkers) August 29, 2013

In Sherman's original article, he wrote the following (emphasis added):

Alfonso became the second straight Soriano that Brian Cashman advised Yankees ownership not to acquire — and was overruled on nevertheless.

Just as with the signing of free agent Rafael Soriano, the general manager believed Yankees assets could be spent better than on Alfonso Soriano, two executives not affiliated with the Yankees told The Post.

Cashman would not directly confirm what he advised Hal Steinbrenner, but told The Post: “I would say we are in a desperate time. Ownership wants to go for it. I didn’t want to give up a young arm [Corey Black]. But I understand the desperate need we have for offense. And Soriano will help us. The bottom line is this guy makes us better. Did ownership want him? Absolutely, yes. Does he make us better? Absolutely, yes. This is what Hal wants, and this is why we are doing it.”

That reads like Cashman is publicly taking a stand that he was against the trade. But I never understood why Cashman would be against the trade in the first place -- Soriano was old, made a lot of money, and looked washed-up -- three things that Cashman usually loves to get in his players! I wrote at the time that I thought that Cash made a big stink about being against acquiring Soriano to get the media on his side again, having them write sympathetic articles about how a big bad Steinbrenner is meddling again. The irony is, of course, that if Cashman hadn't made such a stink, he wouldn't have to do all this revisionist history, because we never would have known this was an issue.

Matthews disagreed with me on the meaning of what Cashman said, and we went back and forth on it on Twitter -- you can see the conversation here. While I didn't agree with Matthews, I was impressed that he took the time to talk with me, and that he was cordial, too!

Incidentally, I don't know how many Yankee fans opposed trading for Soriano -- I was against it, because I thought they ought to rebuild, not commit any more payroll to 2014,  but I was in the minority. And I am happy to admit that I was wrong!

At any rate, I have to agree with what my friend Steve of WasWatching.com says when it comes to Cashman: "The Thin-Skinned GM Strikes Again"!

If Yankee fans are going to boo A-Rod tonight, then they ought to also boo...

There has been a whole to-do this week about whether Yankee fans should boo Alex Rodriguez at home, and whether the Bleacher Creatures should include him in Roll Call. After getting some grief from fellow Yankee fans, Bald Vinny Milano, spokesman for the Bleacher Creatures, had some sensible comments for CBSLocal.com on the whole thing, saying that they were "definitely not going to skip him":

Not for nothing, I feel like the guy needs a little bit of love,” Milano said. “It feels like nobody’s in his corner. For that brief minute we can show him that, yes, we’re in your corner, we’ve got your back. If you’re fighting for the Yankees and you’re trying to help us win, God damn it I’m gonna yell for you.”

The best part of the interview was this:

There’s no question that fans are hurt, disappointed, angry — you name it. One person even told CBS 2 that A-Rod “cheated me” and “broke my heart.”

“The weeping of ‘You broke my heart,’ that’s silly,” Milano said. “I don’t see anybody weeping over Francisco Cervelli.

That leads me to the point of this article (thanks for bearing with me!) It's how the booing of A-Rod for doing PEDs is more than a little hypocritical for Yankee fans to do so. And most of it has to do with people who didn't like A-Rod in the first place for various reasons, most having nothing to do with steroids or other PEDs or anything else. It's like the sentiment I've heard recently about how A-Rod's a cheating bum, and the Yanks ought to replace him with Detroit's Jhonny Peralta at third base next year. Never mind that Peralta was also suspended in the Biogenesis scandal!

Because if Yankee fans' sense of outrage were consistent, they would boo Andy Pettitte. Yet 9.9 times out of 10, whenever I mention this to a Yankee fan, I get back the lie "He only did it one time to heal from an injury!" Was there *ever* talk of booing Andy Pettitte in 2008 or since? Of course not.

And what about Cervelli? And what about supergenius GM Brian Cashman acquiring former Met Fernando Martinez this year *after* he was named to Biogenesis? And what about the many players suspected of juicing that Cash has signed in recent years?

Most notably, what about the 2000 Yankees? Nine of them were in the Mitchell Report. Is anybody suggesting that we no longer count 2000 as part of the 27 World Series titles? And are we not going to count 2009 anymore, either, because A-Rod was the No. 1 reason for No. 27? How about 1996, 1998, and 1999? Steroid users were on those teams, too.

Maybe to be on the safe side, we Yankee fans should start saying that our team only has 22 titles, because all the rest are tainted in some way. You think that will fly?

* * *

I thought about going to A-Rod's return, but I will *not* be at Friday's game. Here's why -- I'm afraid I will end up sitting next to some jerk booing A-Rod, I will say something, we'll end up in an argument, I will have a lousy time, and I'll be ticked off all the way home. Not to mention having to pay money for the privilege! Nah, I will watch the game for free on TV instead. Going there in person is not worth the hassle.

Frankly, given how poorly this team has played as of late, A-Rod's return is going to be the only thing that increases ticket sales or ratings!

And finally somebody in the New York media says what I have been saying for ages -- that the A-Rod saga distracts people from all the other issues with this team. Of course, it's Wally Matthews with ESPN New York, and he *still* won't give Brian Cashman any of the blame. Shocker.

What do you think? Tell us about it!

Did Wally Matthews' Boxing Talk Spur A-Rod to Hit Two Homers?

Even though Squawker readers tell me over and over to stop paying attention to what ESPN New York's Wallace Matthews has to say, I still read him every time he writes. Yes, it's a guilty pleasure, although I wouldn't exactly call it a pleasure!

It's more like a "there must be a pony in here somewhere" thing; while he writes a lot of silliness and hyperbole, every so often there is actually something worthwhile or interesting in his columns. And I do appreciate that Matthews has a sense of humor about himself, as evidenced in his tweets.

Anyhow, the reason I am bringing him up today is because of the pre-game talk the baseball (and occasionally, boxing) writer had with Alex Rodriguez yesterday. Matthews details it in his column:

Before the game, sitting in the Yankees' dugout, A-Rod felt like talking. And he felt like talking not about baseball, but boxing.

"What makes this guy Pacquaio so good?" he asked a reporter he knew had covered a fair number of fights.

"Relentlessness," he was told. "Determination. Viciousness."

With each adjective, his eyes got wider. Then, he went out and channeled his inner PacMan, swinging for the KO on every pitch, and later he would say that when he ripped a 3-2 pitch right at the third baseman in his first at-bat, he knew he was coming out of the funk he had been in for the past month.

"I thought my first at-bat set the tone," he said. "I was happy with every swing I took tonight, and I felt like my legs were under me. Just like a boxer."

 Heh! Maybe it was Wally's boxing talk that did it!

Matthews is teasing on Twitter about his influence on Twitter:

I am taking credit for A-Rod's big night so far. B4 the game, we talked boxing and Manny Pac in the dugout. Now, A-Rod's hitting like him

For once, a journalist was a force for good with the Yankees!

Of course, as Matthews points out later in his article, the last Yankee to break out of a slump with a two-homer day was Derek Jeter. Since then, the captain has been hitting just .138 since the slump "ended." So don't get too excited about A-Rod just yet.

What do you think? Tell us about it!

New York Sportswriters Take Aim at Rafael Soriano, Joe Girardi

Grrrrrrrrrr. Not only did the weather last night cause a rainout for the Yankees, but it meant another day of media pontificating and self-righteousness about Rafael Soriano and Joe Girardi.

The press makes such a big stink if a player doesn't talk to them. Look, I get that it makes their job harder, but sometimes they take their complaints a little too far. For example, ESPN NY's Wally Matthews said what Soriano "did was wrong, to his teammates, to the media and to the fans who depend upon the media as their pipeline into the clubhouse." Spare me. The Soriano kerfuffle was completely media-created. I don't think any fans lost any sleep over it.

As for the teammate issue, that's another media-created thing -- they make a big story about a player not talking, harangue the player's teammates over it to the point of annoyance, then complain "ooh, the teammates are annoyed." Wheeeee!

An aside -- the thing a lot of fans wanted to see the media ask more questions on was to A.J. Burnett last year. He stunk up the joint from June on, shows up and pitches a game with a black eye, then politely says he's not going to talk about how he got said black eye, and the press just drops it? Sorry, when you've won just four games in four months, and you show up for a game looking like you went 15 rounds beforehand, the fans do have a right to know what going on. And the fact that the media essentially gave Burnett a pass is mind-boggling. 

Anyhow, Rafael Soriano did apologize to the media for not speaking after Tuesday's game. But because of the rainout, there were a whole slew of columns going after Joe Girardi for what they perceived as blunders in Tuesday's game. I think it's second-guessing, myself. There are plenty of times I thought Girardi made bad decisions with the bullpen, most notably his terrible job in the ALCS last year. Tuesday's game was not one of them. And I was there, freezing in the cold, so if I thought he messed up, I would be squawking bigtime about it.

But the press is flipping out over the game like it's a playoff one. Kevin Kernan of the New York Post wrote, "The new-math Yankees are so locked into pitch counts that they put the freeze on Sabathia. That tells me they are so concerned about their starting pitching that they are babying Sabathia, and that cost them a game Tuesday night." CC had thrown 104 pitches on a bitterly cold night on his second start of the year. If Girardi had pitched him into the eighth, and he had faltered, we would be hearing from the press about how the tightly-wound manager was riding his best pitching arm too hard.

And the media has mocked Girardi for saying yesterday that Soriano was his eighth-inning guy. But if he hadn't used him Monday, and the rest of the bullpen had faltered, you just know we would hear about how Girardi had lost confidence in his $35 million setup guy. Joe just can't win.

Anyhow, I'm hoping the weather holds up, so we see actual baseball today, so that there is something for the media to write about other than the As the Bullpen Turns drama!

What do you think? Tell us about it!

I Stayed Out in the Cold for This? Yankees Lose to Twins

I went to the game last night, and saw the first Yankee failure of Rafael Soriano. Hmmmm, did Michael Kay jinx him by coming up with the JoSoMo name, or did I jinx him by talking about it? Yikes!

At least I had a great time seeing my childhood friend Kelly at the game, which cushioned the stomach punch of the loss a little better! Of course, I come home to see that Squawker Jon is gloating about his Mets, and giving me the what-for!

A few thoughts on the evening:

* I was just saying to my friend that after Russell Martin hit a homer in his second Yankee game, John Sterling had a nickname ready to go. So when Andruw Jones came up for the first time as a Yankee, I was wondering what Sterling would come up with. Just a few seconds later, Jones hit a homer in his first at-bat as a Yankee. I called Squawker Jon to ask if he could find out what the Sterling call was. I get a text and a voice mail with the goods a few minutes later: "Andruw Jones makes his bones!" Jon sez that Twitter folks think it's a new low for Sterling!

* It was bitterly cold. Just very uncomfortable, even for me, who is pretty warm-blooded. The Stadium paid attendance of 40K last night did not reflect the actual number of people in the seats (I think it was more like 25-30K).

* I saw all sorts of talk about the onion rings guy when I got home -- the dude whose food went flying onto Andruw Jones when he tried to catch a foul ball. I saw the clip on big screen, and thought it was a hot dog that went flying (Kelly was in the concourse at the time, and heard Suzyn Waldman say it was onion rings.) A few points: Aside from the waste of food involved, you cannot expect to catch a foul ball with an onion rings basket. And, more importantly, why do you try to catch a foul ball at all when a Yankee player is trying to get it. Isn't him getting an out for your team more than you getting a souvenir? Yankee fans pride themselves on how knowledgeable they are, but I see ignorant nonsense like this all the time. Do people still not know after Steve Bartman not to go after foul balls your team is trying to catch?

* The media is in a tizzy over Soriano showering and going home before talking to them. I get that, but at the same time, they're taking it too far, reading all sorts of aspersions into Soriano as a person and as a teammate because he didn't stick around to talk to the press. Two examples this morning: Wally Matthews sez "Soriano is no Mariano Rivera. And likely never will be. Nor does it seem like he will ever be a true fit in this clubhouse." And not to be outdone in hysteria, Joel Sherman writes:  

..."this game was lost in the eighth. Was it because of the cold that Soriano faltered? Pitching the day before? Unfamiliarity with the role? Or anger at being asked to take the ball at 4-0 in the eighth? Soriano played to the worst of his reputation and was not around to answer.

He took a bribe to come here for a role he did not really want. Maybe money really can't buy happiness."

Glad to see that, in addition to writing, these two have side careers in mind-reading to fall back on!

* We stayed around until the end, and I actually was hopeful the Yankees would come back and win. After all, it was two years ago against the Twins that the Yankees had a walkoff win, and their first pie-throwing! Alas, it was not to be, not even against Joe Nathan, who usually folds against the Yanks. Bummer.

What do you think? Tell us about it.

Jon celebrates the Yankees and Phillies losses, and I agree with Wally Matthews on something

Squawker Jon must be exhausted from doing the Snoopy Dance this weekend. First, he got to see the Yankees get humiliated by the Rangers. Then, the Giants beat the Phillies, thanks in no small part to Bruce Bochy's great work. He was a manager who was unafraid to pull out all the stops, taking out his starter in the second, and using his best bullpen arms, including Tim Lincecum, in the game.

To top it all off, Ryan Howard pulled a Carlos Beltran, leaving his bat on his shoulder with the bases loaded, striking out to end the game, and the series. (Yeah, yeah, I know the same thing happened with A-Rod Friday, but he had nobody on base, and a 6-1 deficit to overcome -- what was he going to do, hit a six run homer)?

At any rate, two of the Mets biggest rivals ended their season this year, while the Braves' season ended in the NLDS. Jon as I were arguing on the phone last night over what team was the Mets' biggest rival these days -- the Yankees or the Phillies? He said Yankees, I said Phillies, telling him that right now, the rivalry between the Yankees and Mets is like the rivalry between the hammer and the nail. For some strange reason, Jon hung up on me over that. Touchy!

As for myself, a strange thing happened yesterday. I was reading Wally Matthews' analysis of Joe Girardi's bullpen mistakes in the Yankees' loss, and instead of muttering and cursing to myself, as I often do when reading his work, I found myself agreeing with nearly much everything he wrote. I hate it when that happens!

It gets better -- or worse, depending on how you look at it. I wrote words to that effect to him, and he wrote me a funny, self-deprecating response. Matthews came across as a likeable guy. I hate it when that happens, too!

What do you think? Tell us about it!

Non-Shocker! Mike Lupica tells A-Rod to "show up," makes him Designated Yankee Scapegoat

After Alex Rodriguez's great October last year, most of the media have been mostly muted on his so-far-disappointing ALCS this year. That's a story in itself, as evidenced by what Mike Vaccaro and even notorious A-Rod basher Wally Matthews wrote on the subject today. Vaccaro said that "it isn't a matter of "if A-Rod will hit in the postseason, "it is a matter of when." But the Daily News' Mike Lupica is still writing like it's 2006, with his back-page column criticizing the third baseman.

I've never written a blog entry criticizing Lupica before, mostly because I try to avoid reading his mailed-in, cliche-ridden columns as much as possible. It's like Lupey constructed each piece in MadLibs or something -- blah blah blah, Yankee payroll, blah blah blah, the Wilpons are great, blah blah blah, let's make a lame joke at A-Rod's expense, blah blah blah, I have the greatest family in the world. Bor-ing. Shooting from the Lip? More like Snoozing from the Lip!

But I had to say something about Lupica's big screed on A-Rod, where he says that it's time for Rodriguez to show up in the postseason. Because even for Lupey, this column is ridiculously unfair. Some snippets:

The Yankees showed up on Wednesday in Game 5, they did, hundred percent. Now they have to do it again in Texas, or they become another big, bad Yankee team of this decade that got hit somewhere before the World Series and never recovered.

You know who is supposed to show up Friday night for Game 6? Alex Rodriguez. So far he has three hits in the series and only one of them - two-RBI single that Michael Young should have made a play on, eighth inning of Game 1 - has mattered. There have been times when he seemed perfectly happy to take a walk, leave it to Cano when Cano was still hitting behind him.

A few points:

* Lupica writes that "there have been times when he seemed perfectly happy to take a walk, leave it to Cano when Cano was still hitting behind him." Aside from Lupica not seeming to understand that getting on base by any means necessary is considered a good thing these days, how does he know that A-Rod "seemed perfectly happy to take a walk"? Is The King a mindreader now?

Incidentally, do you know how many times A-Rod has been walked in the eight games of the postseason?  Four -- three in the ALCS, and one in the ALDS. Do you know how many times he was walked with Marcus Thames, not Cano, batting behind him? Two. So we're talking about ONE TIME in the ALCS where A-Rod walked in front of Cano! So much for Lupica's point. At any rate, there were times in this series where I would have preferred that A-Rod take a walk, and not strike out or hit a weak dribbler or hit into a double play!

* Sure, A-Rod has had a bad postseason, but so has every other Yankee hitter not named Robinson Cano or Curtis Granderson. Not to bash Mark Teixeira, but he didn't merit a back page column when he had a .000 BA in the ALCS before getting hurt, the second year in a row he had a terrible postseason. What, is it because Tex is a "True Yankee," and A-Rod isn't? Puh-lease.

* At any rate, Lupica's article is very curiously timed, especially since Rodriguez had a good Game 5, and looked the best at the plate that he's been for the whole ALCS. A-Rod was on base three times Wednesday, twice via walks, and once via a sharply hit double to left field. (He didn't get an RBI -- Nick Swisher surely would have scored on it -- because it was a ground-rule double that bounced into the left-field seats.)

A-Rod scored the first run thanks to the first walk (so much for walks being bad!) He also hit the ball very hard a second time, but Michael Young made a great play to cost him a hit. And he looked good in the field that game, something he has not been during the series. A more fair-minded person would have seen this as a good game for Rodriguez. But that's not Lupica.  According to him, nothing Rodriguez did in this game "has mattered."  Good grief.

* Lupica does briefly mention that other players haven't stepped it up, but doesn't give them the full-throttle criticism he does A-Rod:

He's not the only one in the order who hasn't shown enough stick. Derek Jeter has hits, but has struck out six times Mark Teixeira was 0-for-14 before he got hurt. Nick Swisher is .105. Maybe the home run that Swisher hit in Game 5 is the start of something for him.

Why is it that Swisher getting only his second hit of the entire ALCS is "the start of something for him," but A-Rod having a very good Game 5 doesn't matter?

* Lupica isn't even willing to give Rodriguez credit for his huge hit with the bases loaded in Game 1,saying it was a "two-RBI single that Michael Young should have made a play on." Maybe in Lupica's world, Michael Young should have fielded that hit in Game 1, but most people think that would have been a tough play for Young to have made. I watched the video again, and broadcaster Ron Darling said that the batted ball was going "a hundred miles an hour;" thus, Young was unable to make the play. And Young did not get an error on it. So much for Lupey's great analysis.
* Finally, it takes more than one star to win a series. We saw A-Rod "show up," as Lupica would say, in September and win AL Player of the Month for his great hitting, going .295/.375./600 for the rest of  the season, with nine homers and 28 RBI . What was the Yanks' record during that time? 9-17.

What do you think? Tell us about it!

Wally Matthews (who else?) attacks A-Rod for not earning his $32 million salary

I was wondering when ESPN's Wallace Matthews would get his "groove" back, so to speak. Other than him derisively name-calling Joe Girardi as 'Joey Looseleafs" on Twitter, Matthews hadn't written anything truly ridiculous in a while now, even writing a few decent columns here and there. But now he's back in postseason form, babbling about how A-Rod is unclutch. You can just sense the glee in Wally's tone, glad he could get back into the bashing A-Rod saddle!

Matthews writes:

So far, Rodriguez' postseason has been nothing much to cheer about, three singles in 11 at-bats against the Twins, a stat that is lost in the euphoria, or relief, over the three-game ALDS sweep, and not especially poor among Yankees regulars.

But against a team like the Texas Rangers, who have many more weapons on both sides of the ball than the Twins did, an A-Rod evaporation would not only be unacceptable, but perhaps insurmountable for the Yankees.

Let's put Rodriguez's ALDS numbers in perspective here. A-Rod hit 3 singles in 14 at-bats (.271 BA, .308 OBP). Jeter hit 4 singles in 14 at bats (.286 BA, .286 OBP) drove in one run, and scored one run. While neither of them had superstar series, neither of those sets of numbers were abysmal, either. Of course, only one of their numbers merits a column!

And Jeter is the player who hit just .270 this year, showing very little at the plate for the last 3 1/2 months. Yet how many stories did we read this year about how he turned it on again in October, even though his ALDS numbers are virtually the same as not just A-Rod, but as what he did in the regular season? Funny how two players with nearly the same stats get such different treatment from the media.

As for the whole "if one star stinks, the whole team is doomed" idea, Mark Teixeira went 3-for-22 in last year's World Series, and the Yankees still managed to win. Imagine that!

Funny thing is that Matthews then writes about Rodriguez (emphasis added): "Certainly the Yankees could have beaten the Phillies without him last year -- he tailed off to .250 (5-for-20 with 1 HR) in the World Series -- but there's no way they would gotten there without him." Which one is it, dude?

Matthews then opines that:

Now, it's time for A-Rod to start earning that $32 million salary again. One great postseason does not a career make or a reputation change.

Tell that to Bill Mazeroski. Or Bucky Dent. Or Aaron Boone. And also tell that whole rep-changing thing to Bill Buckner and Grady Little. 

Matthews continues on this dubious track:

There's never been a question of what Alex Rodriguez is capable of doing on a baseball field, only questions about whether he actually would do them at the time they are needed most.

Last year, he laid a lot of those questions to rest.

But in one of the most beautiful, and stubborn, aspects of baseball, every season those questions have a habit of re-emerging, demanding to be answered all over again.

Oh, please. This has nothing to do with being an aspect of baseball, but an aspect of the media. Writing about A-Rod, especially in a negative fashion, sells papers, and garners clicks on websites. And you just know if Rodriguez had hit .400 with three homers in the ALDS, Matthews and his ilk would write about how A-Rod could only hit in the playoffs against Minnesota!

What do you think? Tell us about it.

Shocker! ESPN's Wallace Matthews actually writes something fair on A-Rod!

ESPN New York's Wally Matthews is a huge A-Rod hater. Time after time, he writes columns criticizing Alex Rodriguez on the most petty of issues, so it was a big surprise to see Matthews' name attached to a very good story entitled "A-Rod shows more class than Torre."

For all the talk about A-Rod snubbing Joe Torre, nobody on the Yankee beat seemed to notice that Torre didn't exactly fall over himself approaching Rodriguez, either. Until now. Matthews writes:

All weekend, Torre talked about how he had no hard feelings toward Rodriguez, how he hoped that Rodriguez held none toward him and how he would "certainly go over and shake his hand.''

Torre talked and talked and talked. But Rodriguez was the one who acted.

And whether you think it was staged or not -- Rodriguez was seen huddling with Yankees media relations director Jason Zillo up the right-field line before suddenly turning and bolting with his hand outstretched toward Torre -- the fact is, A-Rod made the first move.

Heck, A-Rod made the only move. And for that, he deserves some credit.

Matthews was just griping this weekend about how A-Rod made this story about himself by not approaching Torre. But the real person who orchestrated this story in the media was Torre himself, by talking about it with reporters constantly. If shaking Joe's hand was so important to him, why didn't he make the first move?

Matthews even sent a little criticism St. Joe's way in his column:

Considering the difference in age and maturity, and the fact that it was Torre who co-wrote the book which contained embarrassing passages about A-Rod, it certainly seemed to be Torre's place to approach Rodriguez, rather than vice versa.

But Torre never did that. And his disclaimer -- "Well, he was busy'' -- to explain why he and A-Rod managed to not cross paths came off as disingenuous and even a little snarky.

Good points, and that's what the media completely missed in this story - that Torre should have been the one to approach him, and not vice versa.

Like Michael Kay, I myself was hoping Rodriguez wouldn't bother talking to Torre at all. But in retrospect, I think what he did worked out fine. A-Rod did look like the bigger person.

As for Torre, I had to laugh when I read that he was ticked off at the Los Angeles Times for not completely writing the party line about him:

Torre was upset with a story in the Sunday edition of The Times in which it was written that Rodriguez was described as "a head case" in "The Yankee Years."

Here are a couple of quotes from the book about Rodriguez that are directly attributed to Torre:

-- "When it comes to a key situation, he can't get himself to concern himself with getting the job done, instead of how it looks."

-- "For me success was still going to be about pitching. But seeing his personality concerned me because you could see his focus was on individual stuff."

Torre later explained that whatever he was quoted as saying in the book, he had already said to Rodriguez directly beforehand. The reason he became upset Sunday, he said, was that he was tired of how the book was portrayed as a hit piece on Rodriguez when it was about the landscape of baseball.

Landscape of baseball, eh? Get over yourself, Joe. Your score-settling hit piece will never be mistaken for "The Glory of Their Times II."

What do you think? Tell us about it!

Not a good day in Yankeeland

Sorry I haven't written much as of late, but I haven't gotten to see more than bits and pieces of the last few Yankee games. No truth to the rumor that I was trying to snag that pork chop on a stick!

Of course, it figures that today's debacle is one I did get to see.

First up, seeing A-Rod hit that line drive that hit David Huff in the head was brutal to watch. Yikes! Poor guy. Fortunately, Huff is already out of the hospital, and appears to be A-OK.

I was pretty peeved to see Joba Chamberlain have yet another bad outing, and for the Yankees to lose this game. Geez, you have a six-run lead, you should win the game.

Squawker Jon was so pleased about what happened, he watched the seventh inning on the replay just to see it all!

And Wally Matthews, of all people, made an interesting observation, noting how Joe Girardi referred to Chamberlain:

Afterward, Girardi could barely conceal his disgust.

"We had the game where we wanted," the manager said, his face tight and the veins in his neck throbbing. "We had our eighth-inning guy in, we needed four outs from him ... and he left pitches in the middle of the plate. He just didn't make the pitches when he had to."

Not once did he refer to his pitcher by name. Chamberlain, the darling of the final days of the old Yankee Stadium, had become "he" and "the eighth-inning guy." No longer to be trusted, neither was he fit to be named.

"Players aren't going to be bulletproof," Girardi conceded. "But he's had some bad outings. He's our eighth-inning guy and he's got to get it done for us."

Yes, that's how strange a day it was - Wally Matthews made some good points!

Wallace Matthews (who else?) finds black clouds in Yankeeland

The Yankees had a great win yesterday, especially given that both Alex Rodriguez and Curtis Granderson were out of the lineup. Phil Hughes, with his 1.44 ERA and seven scoreless innings Sunday, is pitching more like an ace than a No. 5 starter. Now that the calendar has flipped to May, Mark Teixeira has remembered how to hit again. Brett Gardner (!) hit a homer, and Nick Swisher hit a homer and went 3-4 in the cleanup spot. So what's not to like?

Well, ESPN NY's Wallace Matthews found plenty to complain about in Sunday's 12-3 win. You see, he and Joel Sherman of the New York Post have been reporting about the latest A-Rod controversy - that Joe Girardi at first simply said Alex needed a day off, and then, after questioning, admitted that the third baseman felt a little something this weekend. In the meantime, Matthews had talked to Brian Cashman, who said something about it being muscle-related. (An aside - Cash should know better than to say something that may sound like it's contradicting Joe G. This isn't the first time it's happened.)

Anyhow, I really don't think it's anything to worry about yet, as long as Rodriguez is playing on Monday. But Matthews made a huge deal about it in the postgame, prefacing his question with Girardi with a sarcastic, snotty comment about "let's try this again." Huh? I thought reporters were supposed to be objective, not come loaded with attitude.

Matthews kept up his negative tone in his piece on the game:

But scratch below the surface, and what looks to have been an ideal three days of Yankees baseball might also contain some ominous rumblings, as preseason worries masked by early-season success come back to haunt them.

Straw man alert. Who is calling this "an ideal three days of Yankees baseball," other than Matthews? Friday was a good game, with Derek Jeter showing why he's so acclaimed. Sunday was a laugher. But Saturday was hardly an "ideal" day of Yankee baseball. It might have been the most frustrating loss of the year, with Javy Vazquez imploding, David Robertson and Damaso Marte giving back a lead, and Curtis Granderson getting hurt.

Wally continues:

We had the manager before the game evading the truth on why A-Rod was sitting out. And we had the manager backpedaling, but still obfuscating, after the game regarding the same subject.

And when the final out was recorded, the Yankees had Mark Melancon on the mound, Ramiro Pena at short, and Francisco Cervelli -- yes, that Francisco Cervelli -- playing third base.

Two things:

* Nobody really cares about this A-Rod tempest in a teapot issue but the media. And it was clear, no matter what happened in the game, that it was going to be all Matthews was interested in exploring. Put it this way. If Hughes had pitched a no-hitter, I still would bet that the first question out of Wally's mouth would still have been about A-Rod!

* On that note, you wonder if Matthews was too busy writing his Girardi interrogation during the ninth for him to be bothered looking at the scoreboard. The game was 12-0 Yankees going into that inning. Yes, putting Cervelli at third, and moving Pena to short to replace Jeter, was unorthodox. But if you can't give Jeter a breather in a game like that, when can you give him an inning or two of rest? And what's wrong with having Melancon pitch there? What, was Wally expecting Mo to pitch or something?

Here's the "best" part of Matthews' piece:

Suddenly, the roster that appeared rock-solid throughout April is beginning to look like what some feared it would back in March -- highly skilled but aging, and as such, injury-prone. Aside from Chien-Ming Wang, the Yankees suffered almost no important injuries during their 2009 championship season; already, they have suffered one we know of, and another we merely suspect.

1. Wang wasn't the only important injury in 2009. Guess Matthews forget that a dude by the name of Alex Rodriguez missed five weeks due to a hip injury last year. You know, the same guy Wally is foaming at the mouth about right now because he missed ONE GAME this year.

2. The injured Curtis Granderson is 29 years old. Don't think "aging" is the reason he got hurt.

3. The Yankees' biggest problem right now is Javier Vazquez. Old age isn't really the reason he stinks, either.

At any rate, if you want a good laugh, read the comments section for his piece. It looks like ESPN NY's readers aren't buying what Wally is selling, either! As one reader put it, "It takes real skill to turn a 12 run, series clinching Yankee victory without the bats of ARod or Granderson into a negative story."

What do you think? Leave us a comment!

Country Joe and the Dish: Why umpires should be seen and not heard

Yankee closer Mariano Rivera isn't exactly Chad Ochocinco when it comes to being an outspoken athlete. So it was a big surprise to see Mo criticize umpire Joe West's comments about Yankees-Red Sox games taking too long.

In an interview with the Bergen Record, West whined about the long pace of the games, calling them "pathetic and embarrassing" and "a disgrace to baseball." Why an umpire, who is supposed to be an impartial arbiter, is making such inappropriate comments to the media is beyond me. If West wants the spotlight so badly, why doesn't he just go date Kate Gosselin or something, and keep his thoughts to himself.

And where is Bud Selig on this? At the very least, West ought to be fined for speaking out of turn. His comments were so over the top and inappropriate that even Rivera, one of the most soft-spoken men in baseball, seemed to feel compelled to say something:

“He has a job to do. He should do his job,” Rivera told the New York Post. “We don’t want to play four-hour games but that’s what it takes. We respect and love the fans and do what we have to do and that’s play our game.”

“It’s incredible,” Rivera said. “If he has places to go, let him do something else. What does he want us to do, swing at balls?”

Actually, one New York writer - Wally Matthews (who else?) - wants the Yankees to do just that!

In "Ump should be praised, not punished," his latest column for ESPN NY, Matthews defends West's comments, and criticizes both teams for having hitters who work the count, like Nick Johnson. The DH who won Wednesday's game is just a time-waster, in Wally's eyes, as someone who "seems determined to see at least six pitches each time up." The horror! Matthews opines:

...the GMs of both the Yankees and Red Sox should assume some of the blame for the excessive length of their games, since both specifically and carefully shop for hitters who like to work deep into the counts in an attempt to get the right pitch to hit and in the process wear down pitchers.

Oh please. Is this guy serious? I can see sportswriters complaining about pitchers taking too long to throw the ball, and batters who futz around too much in the batters' box, or the incessant commercial interruptions during Yankees-Red Sox games. But to gripe about hitters working the count is a ridiculous complaint, even for Matthews.

That's not all. Matthews does something I detest from sportswriters, in which he claims he's speaking for everybody else.

Pick it up, will ya, fellas?

That's all Joe West was saying, and deep down, we all know he's right.

For that, he shouldn't be reprimanded. More like rewarded.

1. What do you mean "we," Wally? Got a parrot on your shoulder?

2. Rewarded for what? For West making a spectacle of himself and criticizing MLB's marquee rivalry?

3. Why should an umpire be "rewarded" for such inappropriate behavior? And how can either team expect fair treatment in the future from an ump who has been shown to have such bias against them?

Besides,  if we're going to talk about egregious things in games, I just want to not that I'm still bitter the umpires wouldn't stop the game during the midge infestation in the 2007 ALDS. The fact that the Yanks had to play through that swarm of bugs was more offensive than a season's worth of four-hour Yankees-Red Sox games!

What do you think? Tell us about it!

Oh, Wally Matthews, how I've missed you so!

Today marks the debut of ESPN New York, which opens up a whole new world in New York sports coverage. And the best part of the new site is that it's bringing back the infamous Wallace Matthews to baseball fans' consciousness. Hooray!

Ever since Newsday went under that pay wall, I've missed reading their baseball coverage. Ken Davidoff is one of the best baseball columnists in the country, but I only get to "read" him on Twitter these days. (I actually tracked down print edition copies of Newsday in Staten Island during the World Series just to read his work - that's how much I like him!) Newsday TV sports columnist Neil Best is also a good read as well.

Then there's Wally Matthews, who I missed reading as well, but for very different reasons. He was one of the New York columnists whose stuff bloggers like myself love to hate. For every spot-on column he did -  he had some good pieces last year criticizing the new Yankee Stadium - he also had a ton of over-the-top silly things to say.

Mets fans couldn't stand the way he bashed their team; The 'Ropolitans columnist Andrew Vazzano calls Matthews "everyone’s least favorite curmudgeon of a columnist." Red Sox fans didn't like Matthews' vitriol over Tim Wakefield's knucleball. Wally called the pitch "a bigger menace to the game than steroids, growth hormone or Clomid will ever be." (Harsh but still funny, I think!)

Personally, I loved, loved, loved reading a Wally Matthews column. Because chances were usually very good that there would be something completely ridiculous to rip apart. Anybody who can inspire me with such quick and easy blog entries like that is golden, in my view!

Anyhow, Matthews, who will be covering the Yankees (oh, joy!) for ESPN NY, did not disappoint with his initial column, suggesting "luck" was the biggest reason the Yankees won the World Series last year. "Last year, the Yankees not only had the best roster in baseball," Matthews writes, "they had maybe the best luck in the recent history of professional sports." Really? Hyperbole much? Sure, luck was a factor with the Yankees, but it wasn't the biggest one last year, not by a long shot.

Matthews goes on to cite the biggest piece of luck being that Game 6 was delayed one day by rain, allowing "the beleaguered Yankees pitching staff a much-needed day of rest." Hmmmm. I'm gonna go out on a limb here and think that the rainout the day after Game 3 of the 2004 ALCS was much more of a game changer. But that's me.

Matthews describes Joe Girardi's management last year this way: "Joe Girardi, the semi-new manager, had such a golden touch all year it seemed as if he could have reformed health care, righted the economy and ended the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in his spare time, if anyone had bothered to ask him." While Girardi did do a phenomenal job last year, you would have hardly gotten any sense of that from the media at the time.

In fact, columnists like Matthews, who slammed Girardi for daring to criticize Selena Roberts' "A-Rod" book, led the drumbeat against Girardi all season, especially in the playoffs. Did Matthews forget how much grief Girardi got taking out David Robertston in favor of Alfredo Aceves in Game 3 of the ALCS? Or using Phil Hughes in relief in Game 5? Or how much the media mocked Girardi for using a three-man rotation in the playoffs? Remember, there were even calls for Girardi's firing if the Yankees didn't win it all!

But maybe the "best" part of this Matthews column is the way he (rightly) credits A-Rod with the Yankees'  regular season turnaround. He writes:

Once the regular season began -- and it truly began on May 8 in Baltimore, when A-Rod, returning from his preseason hip surgery, belted the first pitch he saw out of Camden Yards -- it became increasingly obvious that the Yankees were the best team in baseball....After A-Rod's return, the Yankees went an incredible 90-44."

What's wrong with that, you might ask? Well, it's funny that Wally Matthews, of all people, is writing that without so much as a mea culpa or a "my bad." You see, last March, Matthews proclaimed that A-Rod's Yankee contract was the worst deal in baseball history, writing:

Think about it. Worst. Deal. Ever.

Worse than Andruw Jones to the Dodgers. Worse than Mo Vaughn to the Mets. Worse than Stephon Marbury to the Knicks or Brett Favre to the Jets.

It's not as if he is just an April to October headache. A-Rod is a year-round migraine.

 He also opined back then:

In five seasons, A-Rod has hit 208 home runs with 616 RBIs for the Yankees. During the same period, the Yankees have gone 10-14 in the postseason, suffered the worst playoff collapse in history, haven't made it out of the first round since 2004, and missed October altogether last season.

They are getting worse with him, not better. Not to mention more expensive and more troublesome.

Fortunately for Matthews, Newsday has pulled all his old columns from the site (not that anybody could access them behind the paywall, anyway!), so he probably won't get haunted too much by his old words. (I happened to have written about that A-Rod article at the time, which is why I saved those quotes.)

Welcome back, Wally! It's so much fun to read your columns!

* * *

One aside. I knew Leon Carter, Editor of ESPN New York, at my old job, although I didn't work for him. He always called me "Squawker!" whenever he saw me, which pleased me to no end!


What do you think? Tell us about it!