Derek Jeter has become the face of the Yankees.
When you think Yankees, you think Ruth, Gerhig, Mantle, Dimaggio & Jeter.
There may have been some better players... and some would say better players on this current team.
But Derek Jeter is the most important.
He won't be paid that way, and probably shouldn't.
CC is overpaid.
A Rod, i don't understand.
But the Yankees need those guys.
Teixeira produces more runs and Robinson Cano was the MVP candidate last year.
So, why is Jeter important?
He is the face of the team. Who would be the face of the team without him? If he finishes his career with someone else, it would be a disgrace, especially if it was over money. They've never had a player get 3,000 hits - he'll do it.
He's also an ambassador. People like Jeter. Maybe not RedSux fans, but others do. He's not A Rod. He's not the power guy, but he is the every day guy. He represents the team well.
If i owned another team i would have pursued him. And if he aged, i would still use him as a spokesperson for the team.
He is a winner.
He seems to produce in October & November. He makes big plays. He makes the plays not seen in the stat sheet. People complain about his defense, but he makes plays. He leads the team, he helps them win.
If i owned another team i would ahve pursued him. He brings a winning attitude to the club. He changes the atmosphere. And i think people want to come out and see a professional. He isn't the awe-inspiring type, but a guy you root for.
i think he got a fair price. He could drive it up because of his name, more than his play perhaps, but he is still one of the elite SS in the game.
i think the Yanks should have gave him a 4 year 60 mil deal
It all worked out in the end, we all knew there was no way Jeter or Mariano Rivera were going to leave the Yanks
Showing posts with label Yankees. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Yankees. Show all posts
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Monday, July 26, 2010
Mook vs good & bad teams
There are good teams and there are bad teams.
Good teams generally stay good and bad teams generally stay bad.
There have been exceptions. There were a few years the Yankees couldn’t do anything, and a while that the Celtics sucked. The Cowboys were notoriously bad, then ridiculously good. The Dolphins have had their slumps… and it is hard to remember the Raiders ever being good.
But the tendency is good teams stay good, while bad teams stay bad.
We know the Clippers will be bad. We know the Lakers will be good.
People often criticize the Yankees. “They buy their championships.” It’s unfair.”
But the Twins are continually contenders. The A’s are usually decent. And neither spends any money. The Padres, Rockies, Giants aren’t known for spending. The Cardinals spend some, but they’re not known for their spending.
If you look at the Yankees though, when they were winning consistently, it wasn’t b/c of free agent signings.
A Rod didn’t help them win. Neither did Jason Giambi. In fact those guys ruined the team.
The core of their championships ran up the middle: Jeter, Rivera, Bernie Williams, Jorge Posada, Andy Petitte – all homegrown. Heroes were guys like Paul O’Neil acquired in a minor trade or little know guys like Scott Brossius or Jim Leyritz.
The team that bought their world series were the Red Sox: getting guys like Manny Ramirez & David Ortiz and pumping them up with steroids. And Curt Shilling & Johnny Damon. None of these guys came from their system or in smart trades.
Meanwhile the Orioles tried going after free agent after free agent and never could get out of the cellar. The Mets are awful, no matter who they sign or who they trade for.
Money doesn’t make the difference between a good team and bad team.
It’s all about how you spend the money.
This summer we’ve seen NBA GM’s spend lavishly on bench players, underachieving players, and guys who just aren’t any good. The T-Wolves, the Bucks…. They aren’t getting any better.
The Twins haven’t made all the right moves (getting practically nothing for Johan was a waste, esp when they could have got a Jon Lester or Jacoby Ellsbury or a Phil Hughes), but they reload and get the players on their team that play their style, buy into their philosophy and play hard and play well.
Issiah Thomas was a horrible judge of talent, and never formed teams. They would be a good fantasy team, but not a championship team.
The Mets pay huge chunks of money who no one else is willing to pay – like Jason Bay. They could have saved $15million. Why did the Orioles spend so much money on a closer- who wasn’t even that good?
The Angels recent trades and free agent signings show this too.
Don’t blame the Yankees or the Heat or the Lakers because they make good trades, wise draft picks, and sign the right players.
It’s not about the money, it’s about how they spend it.
In life it is similar. We can't just throw money at something to fix a problem. It doesn't solve anything and sometimes makes things worse, especially in the long-run.
A lot also has to do with the atmosphere & attitude of the team. You can create a winning environment on a team.
And you don't just want a bunch of all-stars, you want a team. People filling different roles and working together.
If it is professional sports team or a ministry team or an office. We need people who can work together to be successful. We need to create an environment for success. And we need to be wise in spending and selection of personal.
Good teams generally stay good and bad teams generally stay bad.
There have been exceptions. There were a few years the Yankees couldn’t do anything, and a while that the Celtics sucked. The Cowboys were notoriously bad, then ridiculously good. The Dolphins have had their slumps… and it is hard to remember the Raiders ever being good.
But the tendency is good teams stay good, while bad teams stay bad.
We know the Clippers will be bad. We know the Lakers will be good.
People often criticize the Yankees. “They buy their championships.” It’s unfair.”
But the Twins are continually contenders. The A’s are usually decent. And neither spends any money. The Padres, Rockies, Giants aren’t known for spending. The Cardinals spend some, but they’re not known for their spending.
If you look at the Yankees though, when they were winning consistently, it wasn’t b/c of free agent signings.
A Rod didn’t help them win. Neither did Jason Giambi. In fact those guys ruined the team.
The core of their championships ran up the middle: Jeter, Rivera, Bernie Williams, Jorge Posada, Andy Petitte – all homegrown. Heroes were guys like Paul O’Neil acquired in a minor trade or little know guys like Scott Brossius or Jim Leyritz.
The team that bought their world series were the Red Sox: getting guys like Manny Ramirez & David Ortiz and pumping them up with steroids. And Curt Shilling & Johnny Damon. None of these guys came from their system or in smart trades.
Meanwhile the Orioles tried going after free agent after free agent and never could get out of the cellar. The Mets are awful, no matter who they sign or who they trade for.
Money doesn’t make the difference between a good team and bad team.
It’s all about how you spend the money.
This summer we’ve seen NBA GM’s spend lavishly on bench players, underachieving players, and guys who just aren’t any good. The T-Wolves, the Bucks…. They aren’t getting any better.
The Twins haven’t made all the right moves (getting practically nothing for Johan was a waste, esp when they could have got a Jon Lester or Jacoby Ellsbury or a Phil Hughes), but they reload and get the players on their team that play their style, buy into their philosophy and play hard and play well.
Issiah Thomas was a horrible judge of talent, and never formed teams. They would be a good fantasy team, but not a championship team.
The Mets pay huge chunks of money who no one else is willing to pay – like Jason Bay. They could have saved $15million. Why did the Orioles spend so much money on a closer- who wasn’t even that good?
The Angels recent trades and free agent signings show this too.
Don’t blame the Yankees or the Heat or the Lakers because they make good trades, wise draft picks, and sign the right players.
It’s not about the money, it’s about how they spend it.
In life it is similar. We can't just throw money at something to fix a problem. It doesn't solve anything and sometimes makes things worse, especially in the long-run.
A lot also has to do with the atmosphere & attitude of the team. You can create a winning environment on a team.
And you don't just want a bunch of all-stars, you want a team. People filling different roles and working together.
If it is professional sports team or a ministry team or an office. We need people who can work together to be successful. We need to create an environment for success. And we need to be wise in spending and selection of personal.
Monday, July 19, 2010
Mook vs Innings pitched limits
When i write Mook Vs... titles it is an homage to the tv show Chuck, not that i'm against it... but not with this post. This is something i have a problem with...
News came out that Strassberg will have an inning limit this year…. Meaning he’ll be done pitching by September… We’ve already heard of the Joba rules- which means nothing now, though we also see the Yanks handling Phil Hughes with kid’s gloves…
And there were many who critiqued AJ Hinch for letting Edwin Jackson throw his no-hitter despite his high pitch count.
But why are we babying players so much these days?
Is it because they take so many substances, they’re not able to endure… or because kids don’t know how to play sports anymore? I don’t get it.
Pitchers used to pitch 200 innings easy. Complete Games was a category we looked at to determine how good a pitcher was, and many would pitch 10+ CG /year.
Maybe they would have been better if they hadn’t. Maybe there would be no debate about Jack Morris or Bert Blyleven.
But all their complete games didn’t shorten their career (though they may have had better numbers).
Prior & Wood got hurt. Doc Gooden didn’t last. He picthed 218 innings as a 19 yr old and 276 as a 20 year old... Maybe if they had pitch counts with him we'd be talking about him as the greatest pitcher of all time.
But what about pitchers who just run out of gas and who aren’t as good as they used to be… what if we let them pitch more and be even that more outstanding?
And what about all the pitchers who didn't have pitch counts and had long careers?
i say let 'em pitch!
There is no need to keep a pitcher in if he’s struggling, or if there is a huge lead even… but I think we need to stop babying players.
News came out that Strassberg will have an inning limit this year…. Meaning he’ll be done pitching by September… We’ve already heard of the Joba rules- which means nothing now, though we also see the Yanks handling Phil Hughes with kid’s gloves…
And there were many who critiqued AJ Hinch for letting Edwin Jackson throw his no-hitter despite his high pitch count.
But why are we babying players so much these days?
Is it because they take so many substances, they’re not able to endure… or because kids don’t know how to play sports anymore? I don’t get it.
Pitchers used to pitch 200 innings easy. Complete Games was a category we looked at to determine how good a pitcher was, and many would pitch 10+ CG /year.
Maybe they would have been better if they hadn’t. Maybe there would be no debate about Jack Morris or Bert Blyleven.
But all their complete games didn’t shorten their career (though they may have had better numbers).
Prior & Wood got hurt. Doc Gooden didn’t last. He picthed 218 innings as a 19 yr old and 276 as a 20 year old... Maybe if they had pitch counts with him we'd be talking about him as the greatest pitcher of all time.
But what about pitchers who just run out of gas and who aren’t as good as they used to be… what if we let them pitch more and be even that more outstanding?
And what about all the pitchers who didn't have pitch counts and had long careers?
i say let 'em pitch!
There is no need to keep a pitcher in if he’s struggling, or if there is a huge lead even… but I think we need to stop babying players.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)