yankees228

A potential negative for the Yankees from tonight... http://yankees.lhblogs.com/2010/04/15/park-shutdown-with-hamstring-injury/

Pure conjecture on my part, but maybe part of the incentive for the Yankees to get rid of Melky was that they thought it might wake up Cano. It would be similar to what they did when they sent Melky to AAA in 2008, a move that I think was just as much for Cano as it was for Melky. If Cano can begin to live up to his potential, this lineup would just get that much stronger.

Subpar pitching, even though they only allowed two runs. Bats were good, and it's a third straight series win against three playoff contenders. Best start to a season since 2003.

Robbie Cano just looks spectacular so far this year.

Kazmir looked horrible that inning. The first two pitches to Jeter were both nice change-ups, but after that he didn't make a single good pitch the rest of the inning. Unfortunately the Yankees have nothing to show for it. EDIT: But Hughes, who also has no command of his fastball early, just paid for it. And silly cheers from the fans, most of which will surely be leaving around the seventh inning tonight, regardless of the score.

I might just check this blog every single day to see if they finally pick the Sox to lose a game.

To be fair, while they are older players, it doesn't make sense in that they're signed to short term deals.

That is literally the only thing missing. Quick, someone call him a pussy.

I can't wait until Dipre reads this thread.

Yup, this happened. He said it was because it's his daughter's favorite song.

That's an interesting take, and all the points are valid. I agree, each one of these teams are part of a bigger league, and the best interests of the league must be looked out for. Additionally, as you mentioned, it's not true capitalism. I admit, your argument is solid, and I don't necessarily disagree. The only thing is (I know I'm repeating myself) you're asking teams to give back money that they earned. At the very least, the NFL is set up where one team doesn't usually earn too much more than the other teams, because of the national TV rights. In the current system, regardless of whether or not these teams have a market advantage, they're still earning money on their own. This isn't really a counter argument to yours, because I agree with it, but from the stand point of the big market teams, you're just asking them to give lots of money away. Thanks for sharing your point of view on the topic ORS. While we often disagree on things, many of them stemming from this topic (we must have debated the legitimacy of the Yankees' championship a half dozen times), I do respect your opinion. On the same topic, I remember Keith Law making an argument against a salary floor by saying that teams not in contention should not be expected to sign veterans to meet their payroll obligations that will either block young players, or just rot on the bench. In a system, unlike other sports, where many of these teams rely so heavily on their farm systems, I would agree with Law that having veterans filling positions on the big league club might be counter productive. What do you think about that?

Or are you saying that the money going to the small market teams should come from other places, besides the large market teams. If so, where would that revenue come from?

Haha, well, I thought it might be sarcastic, so I should have clarified and said that I just wanted a brief opinion. The issue that you brought up was obviously the one that I was thinking about. Do you think it's realistic to get the teams that have enormous revenue streams to pay more and more money to the small market teams? Additionally, do you even think that's fair? Unless you nationalize television coverage (like the NFL), these teams are generating this revenue on their own. Granted, many of them are able to do it because of their market sizes, but you're still asking them to give money back that they've earned. Sure, I understand that you're viewing baseball as a sport before a business. I'm not saying that I disagree, but it really goes against the foundations of this country's economic structure to ask these teams to sacrifice so much of the money that they earn, to the point where low market teams are able to reach the salary floor.

Yeah, a dissertation would be interesting to hear, if you had the time. Based off that I would probably have a question or two for you.

I couldn't agree more with this. Not just for baseball, but even for other sports. Can I go to one basketball game and have a little peace and quiet during a time out? Well said a700.

When I was in Chicago last summer to see the Yankees, that was his walk up song, and they also played it every time he got a base hit. I agree, excellent choice. Also, Nick Johnson's walk up song yesterday was some Miley Cyrus song. It was pretty hilarious, and the section I was in would chant, "Miley, Miley..." when he came up from that point on.

I don't disagree, and, in the long run, I'm not concerned at all. However, in the immediate future, it will likely be a recurring problem.

Credit to Pineiro, but the Yankees had nothing going offensively from the start. Thing is, with Teixeira hitting third, right in the middle of rallies, he is really hurting this team. I don't expect any changes to the lineup, so it's just something that is what it is, which is too bad.

So tough to come back in these spots, because you need some breaks. Robbie hit that ball as hard as you can hit it, and instead of playing no doubles, Scoisia had his third base way off the line. Instead of a single to keep the line moving, it was out, and proved to be the turning point of the inning.

Pitching change, but another right hander, so Teixeira isn't being turned around to the bigger part of the park. He is really scuffling now though.

I never suggested to do both with Morales. I agree, you either bring the infield in or you set up the double play, not both. With that being said, I understand that his thinking was probably not to put more runners on base, but with the way Pineiro is pitching, he just could not afford to let the Angels score again. Couple that with the fact that the bottom of the order is due up, and the chances of a big inning are greatly diminished even with an extra runner on base. I brought up him not bringing the infield in to help illustrate the point that Joe wasn't concerned with that runner at third, which he should have been. If he didn't want to walk Morales, which would have been the proper move, he should have at least brought the infield in, especially once the count went to 1-2, when the chances to solid contact aren't good. As for pitching Aceves yesterday, you're right, he's a multi-inning reliever while Robertson is a short reliever. No doubt about it. But here's the problem. If you give Aceves a weak off, there is no way you can expect him to be sharp in a close game, which is what they needed today. The ninth inning of yesterday's game presented an opportunity to put a pitcher out there that needs work, and if he isn't sharp it won't cost you the game. I believe it's very unlucky, although I admit that we don't know for sure, that Aceves facing a few batters yesterday would have any impact on his availability today. But the thing is, even if he wasn't available today, it would be a better situation than throwing him today after having a weak off. They would have been better off going to someone else in a close game than him, after having pitched once this year (which was a weak ago). He has done the exact same thing with Marte. Marte has only faced two batters this year, during the first two games of the season. After Park had gotten the first two hitters out in the top of the eighth inning yesterday, the proper move would have been to go to Marte against Morales, turning him around to his weaker side. Marte needs the work, especially when you consider that he wasn't sharp in either of his first two appearances. It's impossible to expect him to come in tomorrow and get someone like Bobby Abreu out in a big spot, or Josh Hamilton over the weekend, without having an opportunity to work the kinks out. In games where the outcome isn't in doubt, a manager has to make decisions, not just for that game, but for future games. Joe has failed to do this, and it's something that cost him today, and will continue to cost him in the future if he doesn't correct this issue.