0 comments Now That Derek Jeter is Retired, Wallace Matthews Wants Joe Girardi to Play A-Rod at Third Base Often, So He Can Inevitably Complain about A-Rod

Sportswriters often don't see athletes as human beings, they see these athletes as walking narratives. Walking narratives that can help that sportswriter with a column idea or even as a means to expound upon that narrative in a column. The New York media has missed Alex Rodriguez this season. They miss bashing him and talking about what a hypocritical, self-involved, cheating asshole he is. So naturally, Wallace Matthews misses A-Rod and can't wait for him to come back and play for the Yankees next season. It will make Wallace happy to know he can have A-Rod to kick around again. But first, Joe Girardi has to go ahead and hand A-Rod the starting third base job before the World Series is even over. So it turns out A-Rod won't be getting the Jeter treatment, because Girardi won't name A-Rod the starting third baseman in 2015. Just in case the zero people who thought Girardi might were confused.

Joe Girardi is about to go from the Farewell Tour to the Circus Parade. 

And the New York media could not be happier. They were tired of all this happiness and positivity surrounding Derek Jeter's retirement. Finally, they can get pageviews using negativity.

Girardi took a lot of heat this season for managing what some believed was a Derek Jeter Farewell Tour rather than a baseball season, and put forth the dubious proposition that this was the reason the Yankees missed the playoffs for the second straight year.

(New York media to each other) "We are going to saturate the coverage of the Yankees' season with talk about Derek Jeter and his impending retirement. We will make this our sole focus."

(New York media to Joe Girardi) "Why did you manage this season like it was a Derek Jeter Farewell Tour? That's the only story we heard about this season. Was that your only focus?"

While Girardi certainly deferred to Jeter all season, continuing to play him at shortstop and bat him second, despite sometime shrill calls from many corners claiming this was the reason the Yankees stunk in 2014, Alex Rodriguez cannot hope to enjoy the same level of respect. 

This disputes the claim of absolutely nobody that A-Rod was going to be treated like Derek Jeter was during his final year in the majors. Sure, a lot of nobody thought that A-Rod would be immediately handed the starting third baseman job before the World Series ended and the MLB offseason has begun, but these people, of which there were none, will be shocked to find out this isn't happening. Joe Girardi isn't going to cater to Alex Rodriguez like he did Derek Jeter. And here I thought Jeter and A-Rod would be treated the same, especially since the legacy each will leave with the Yankees isn't similar at all.  

And no, the reason the Yankees stunk in 2014 is not solely because Derek Jeter batted 2nd. The Yankees had injuries to their pitching staff, (predictably) the free agents they signed didn't entirely live up to their contract for a variety of reasons and the farm system isn't built up enough to withstand these two issues. But yeah, blame Girardi for playing Jeter, though the New York media would have had a heart attack had Girardi put Jeter 8th/9th in the batting order and sat him more than two games in a row.

That much was clear from Girardi's postseason wrap-up news conference at Yankee Stadium on Monday, in which he refused to guarantee A-Rod his old job back, despite being given several opportunities to say so. 

What kind of idiot manager would guarantee A-Rod his old job back for the upcoming season as early as late September? Girardi has no idea who the Yankees will sign in the offseason, no idea what kind of playing shape A-Rod is in, and Rodriguez wasn't exactly tearing the cover off the ball during the 2013 season. It would be the height of stupidity to guarantee A-Rod his old job back, so naturally the mouth-breathing idiots in the New York media ask Girardi to do so.

And I know if Girardi had said, "Of course A-Rod will have his job back when he returns" then this column by Wallace would go in a completely different direction. It would be, "I can't believe Girardi guaranteed A-Rod's job at third base this early in the offseason."

Asked directly, twice, on Monday if A-Rod was returning as the Yankees' starting third baseman, Girardi hedged. 

I don't want to spoil it, but Girardi's "hedge" is acknowledging that A-Rod will be playing third base when he returns. This further removes any confusion that A-Rod will be moving to the outfield or to shortstop. I'm sure the same subset of zero people who also thought A-Rod would get the Jeter treatment during the 2015 season thought A-Rod might play shortstop when he returned to the Yankees team. These zero people are now even less confused than they never were.

"He hasn’t played in a year," Girardi said. "That’s not easy to do, to sit out a year. I've got to see where he’s physically at, I’ve got to see from a playing standpoint where he’s at. Do we expect him to be a player on our team? Absolutely. Do we expect him to play third base? Yes. But in fairness, I think you have to see where he’s at." 

So A-Rod will play third base when he returns? Look at Girardi hedging on whether A-Rod will be the regular third baseman for the Yankees by acknowledging that A-Rod will be playing third base.

Which raises the bizarre and tantalizing prospect that Alex Rodriguez could be returning to the Yankees as a part-time player, or worse, a bench player.

Which is pretty much what the New York media has wanted A-Rod to be for a few seasons now. Of course, if A-Rod is a part-time player the New York media will take one of two roads:

1. State A-Rod isn't playing well enough to deserve to be a full-time player and then call him "an expensive pinch-hitter" in some fashion, while baiting A-Rod to second-guess Girardi's decision by firing a series of leading questions at him all in an effort to drum up controversy.

2. Claim that A-Rod should be starting because he makes enough money that he needs the opportunity to contribute and then blame A-Rod for Girardi refusing to pull him from the lineup. I don't know how, but the media will try to blame A-Rod for this.

Funny, Girardi showed no similar hesitation when asked similar questions about Jeter a year ago, even though Jeter was a year older than Rodriguez and coming off a similar yearlong layoff, having played in just 17 games scattered throughout the 2013 season.

That is because it was Jeter's last season and Girardi had never pulled Jeter from the lineup for performance-related reasons. Girardi has pulled A-Rod for performance-related reasons, and A-Rod has been out of baseball for an entire year, while Jeter was rehabbing an injury during much of the 2013 season. There's no way Jeter wasn't going to be the Yankees starting shortstop coming into the 2014 season for a variety of reasons. Just like A-Rod is not being handed the starting third base job for a variety of reasons.

No matter by what illicit means he achieved it, Rodriguez was always a better player than Jeter, if not nearly as much of a winner or so good a teammate. 

And those are part of the reasons why Rodriguez isn't being handed the third base job and Jeter was assumed to be the Yankees' starting shortstop during the 2014 season. Being a good teammate is always nice to see and much of A-Rod's value lies in his power, so it remains to be seen what remains of that power.

It is easy to argue that he doesn't deserve it, for transgressions both on the field and off. 

Ah yes, so basically Wallace Matthews is asking questions and then answering his own questions. Essentially, this entire column could have been a conversation instead Wallace's head instead of a column.

Without even trying, A-Rod is going to cause Girardi the kind of headaches that Jeter never did, and he does not appear to be relishing the prospect, even five months removed from the start of spring training.

It seems that Wallace has broached the question of A-Rod's starting status simply so he can rehash the same talking points about what a pain in the ass A-Rod is. Wallace acts surprised Girardi hasn't named A-Rod the starting third baseman (did you know A-Rod isn't on the same level as Derek Jeter?) in late September and then begins to list the reasons why Girardi wouldn't do this.

Although the manager went out of his way to mention, "I have a good relationship with Alex," he was unable to give a precise date of the last time he and his erstwhile third baseman actually spoke. 

GIVE WALLACE MATTHEWS THE PRECISE TIME THAT YOU LAST SPOKE WITH A-ROD! ALSO, HOW MANY EMOTICONS WERE USED?

"We've talked more about how he’s just doing and his family, mostly through texting," Girardi said. "Obviously that will pick up now that we’re through the season and I don’t have nearly as much to do, just to see where he is at physically and encouraging him and see what his thoughts are."

Now that Joe Girardi has stopped managing the Derek Jeter Farewell Tour, he can focus more on the Alex Rodriguez Redemption Tour. At some point, probably the beginning of each month during the season, he will put the Yankees lineup, pitching rotation, and bullpen usage charts together so he can spend the rest of that month focused on A-Rod as much as he solely focused on Derek Jeter.

All indications are that he expects to come back to the Yankees in all of his former capacities, as the everyday third baseman and a middle-of-the-order hitter, as well as a possible new capacity -- as a team leader now that Jeter will no longer be in the clubhouse.

How did Wallace get these indications? Why is Wallace unable to give a precise date of the last time he got an indication this is true?

Joe Girardi isn't allowed to talk to A-Rod during the season without every discussion notated and archived for the public's perusal, but Wallace Matthews is all, "I know that A-Rod thinks he is coming back to play third base everyday and hit in the middle of the order," and he just wants his readers to nod their head as if this is true and possibly isn't just an assumption Wallace wants to make for the purposes of writing a column.

Without mentioning names, Girardi spoke in general terms about the likelihood that several current Yankees could step up next year to fill the leadership void Jeter leaves behind. And from what I know about Alex, I can tell you he considers himself one of those candidates, if not the only legitimate one.

Brian McCann is going to stand in the baseline and yell at A-Rod for believing he is the only legitimate leadership candidate. There is an unwritten rule that says you have to get past Brian McCann first before you can be the leader of any team.

But it is just as likely that his return will be seen by some in the Yankees clubhouse as a burden, because at least for the beginning of spring training, the camp is likely to be crawling with even more media than usual, poking and prodding A-Rod for his daily thoughts and charting his every move on and off the field. 

Of course, the New York media could ensure the Yankees clubhouse don't see A-Rod as a burden by not poking and prodding A-Rod for his daily thoughts and charting his move on and off the field, but apparently that isn't even close to being option. Not that the New York media has an obligation to help the Yankees have a lesser burden, but Wallace Matthews is basically saying he and his media friends will make the Yankees clubhouse a living hell if they damn well want to.

Girardi acknowledged the coming circus could serve as a camp distraction, but said: "I think our players will handle it fine. The first couple of days in spring training there will be more attention, and that will die down. That's the nature of sports too. Something’s gonna happen that the focus will be off of him again."

Joe Girardi is going to have Francisco Cervelli murdered so the focus will be off A-Rod and on Cervelli's untimely death. I'm just kidding of course, the New York media would recognize that Cervelli is dead so there's no reason to immediately cover a story that isn't going anywhere, and then continue to focus on asking A-Rod for for the millionth time whether he considers himself the leader of the Yankees now and how much he'll miss Derek Jeter.

the spotlight will be on him again as he faces a likely procession of hostile crowds, perhaps even in his own ballpark. 

So why not announce A-Rod has the starting third base job in late September when he hasn't proven he deserves it, the fans hate him, and it will only put more pressure on him to produce immediately? Joe Girardi has really missed a chance to give New York sportswriters a great story to write.

"His teammates enjoy Alex," Girardi said. "His presence in the clubhouse, the way he likes to teach the game and talk about the game, so I don’t think that will be an issue. Will he have to deal with some angry fans? Yeah. But we’ll help him get through that. And when’s the last time Alex hasn’t had to deal with that?

Stop it! Stop being reasonable about Alex Rodriguez and how hostile crowds will affect him. Just pretend that A-Rod has never faced a hostile crowd before. It's a lot more fun that way.

If he's even 75 percent of the player he was before he was suspended, A-Rod can help the Yankees too, especially the offensively challenged Yankees of 2014.

Considering he is being paid $21 million next season, that's good to hear. I'm not going to mention that as much of a douchebag asshole as A-Rod has been through the years, it's funny how once the Yankees offense starts stumbling sportswriters start talking about him in a positive fashion as someone who can help the team. Wait, I did just mention it. It's almost like A-Rod is overpaid, but still a reasonably useful baseball player.

But there's no guarantee that when he comes back to the Yankees -- and his yearlong suspension ends as soon as the World Series is over -- that aside from his lavish paycheck, Rodriguez will enjoy any of the perks he did before he was set down, or any of the deference the manager showed to Jeter. 

Again, no one thought Alex Rodriguez would be treated in the same way that Derek Jeter was treated during his final season in the majors. Anyone who thought A-Rod would be treated as a conquering hero upon being reinstated is an idiot or simply stuck in 2002.

Which sets up a mouthwatering question for Girardi's postseason news conference a year from now:

After being accused in 2014 of playing Derek Jeter too much, will Girardi in 2015 face charges that he didn't play Alex Rodriguez enough?

My mouth is officially watered. Tell you what, if Alex Rodriguez plays well enough to play third base a lot during the 2015 season then I am betting Joe Girardi will play A-Rod a lot. Girardi won't reasonably know if A-Rod will play well enough until five months from now in spring training. Hence, he doesn't name A-Rod the starting third baseman yet. Somehow it makes sense if you just take the time to think about it. He won't be treated like Derek Jeter and I doubt anyone thought he would be treated in a similar fashion. 

0 comments Wallace Matthews Tells Us Alex Rodriguez is Not Lou Gehrig; Also Reminds Us that Fire is Hot

I spend more time than I would like writing about columns that eviscerate Alex Rodriguez and it feels like I am defending him, which isn't my intention at all. Of course now it looks like A-Rod is going to get hit hard by MLB for his affiliation with Biogenesis, so who the hell would want to defend him for anything? I figured I would post this even though A-Rod's fight to re-join the Yankees has been undermined by his own self. This is what I get for sitting on column and not writing on it until a couple of days ago. I think it shows the topic of A-Rod seems to bring a lot of columnists' blood to it's boiling point and gibberish tends to get written due to this. Today, Wallace Matthews tells us that A-Rod is not Lou Gehrig and then manages to criticize A-Rod for trying to come back from a hip injury to help the Yankees win games. It's a nice balance Wallace shows. He criticizes A-Rod for being overpaid, but also criticizes A-Rod for daring to rehab from his injury and re-join the Yankees team. Of course if A-Rod didn't play for the Yankees anymore then who would Wallace and the rest of the New York sports media pick on?

This column is called "New York Yankees won't get Independence from Alex Rodriguez" and it was written on July 4. Get it? It was written on Independence Day and that's exactly what the Yankees won't be getting from Alex Rodriguez. This is journalism, people. Step back if you can't handle the awesomeness that Wallace Matthews is putting right in your face. 

On July 4, 1939, Lou Gehrig, a 35-year-old man dying of an insidious disease that would one day bear his name, stood before a bank of microphones set up at home plate at the old Yankee Stadium and famously proclaimed himself "the luckiest man on the face of the earth."

On the same day 74 years later, in the pages of a newspaper, Alex Rodriguez, a 38-year-old man in the prime of health and with another $114 million guaranteed him, portrayed himself as a beleaguered victim of circumstances heroically determined to fight on despite what he believes to be the unwarranted scorn of his employers and many of his team's fans.

A-Rod is in the prime of his health except for the injuries that have prevented him from playing at all during the 2013 season. Point taken though. A-Rod isn't Lou Gehrig. In fact, few people are Lou Gehrig so this is kind of a dumb way to start off a column. A-Rod deserves whatever MLB throws at him, but he wasn't Lou Gehrig long before he was tied to Biogenesis.

There's a reason Gehrig was known as The Iron Horse, and many reasons A-Rod is known by several other nicknames, at least one of which also has the word "horse" in it.

Actually Wallace, the word "centaur" does not have "horse" in it, but I think A-Rod is the only one that considers himself a centaur anyway. But yes, no one likes A-Rod and how dare he attempt to re-join the Yankees. He needs to stay away from ever playing baseball again so Wallace can keep talking about how useless and overpaid he is. If A-Rod plays well then he might start to look even somewhat worth the money he is getting paid and Wallace Matthews can't have that. So Wallace is probably thrilled that A-Rod is going to be suspended hard by MLB.

"My mom's had a hard time with all of this the last nine months, watching everything," Rodriguez told USA Today's Bob Nightengale. "My god, I hate to see her go through this. And my daughters are sitting there and watching their dad. I want to make them proud. I want to make my mom proud."

A couple of points here:

1. A-Rod is talking about what he has caused his family members to go through and how he wants to get back on the field and make them proud. He's not feeling bad for himself, but simply noting that he has let his family down and doesn't want to do that anymore.

2. The fact A-Rod's family members are going through something is A-Rod's fault. Outside of the injuries he has gone through, nearly every other issue has been A-Rod's fault or partly been his doing. So I don't feel bad for him.

3. A-Rod is a dipshit, but I have a hard time eviscerating him for wanting to get healthy and produce on the field for the Yankees. Maybe I give him too much benefit of the doubt. He's an ass and he is a cheater, but he really seems like he wants to play baseball again. It doesn't excuse his cheating obviously.

Never mind that whatever Alex Rodriguez's mother has been "going through" over the past nine months, or even nine years, is most likely because of the actions of her son,

I don't think at any point in that article A-Rod tried to make it seem like he wasn't the cause of what they were "going through." In fact, here are some quotes from A-Rod in this very USA Today column that Wallace Matthews is referring to and these are quotes Wallace intentionally leaves out because it doesn't fit the agenda he has:

"I'm the first one to say last year that I stunk,'' Rodriguez says. "It was a bloodbath. I'm not running away from that.

"It's the (expletive) pink elephant in the room, I know I'm better than that.''

Yeah, "the pink elephant." Only A-Rod would say "pink elephant" instead of just "elephant." 

"I've got to be honest with myself,'' Rodriguez says, "I haven't played well for a long time. I'm not going to sit here and pretend that I'm going to go out and hit 50 home runs, or any of that craziness. But I can be someone who can have a big impact in the middle of our lineup.

"Just to have the opportunity to put on the pinstripes, and compete again at Yankee Stadium, and helping my team win, it's a day that I've been dreaming about a long time now.

What an asshole, right? A-Rod didn't say much about Biogenesis on advice of his attorney, but he clearly seems to be taking responsibility for his play on the field. He won't take responsibility for Biogenesis (not yet), but it seems somewhat clear to me he knows that A-Rod isn't looking to cash a paycheck, blame others, then go home. He wants to play again, or at least have the chance to strike out and get booed again.

Of course Wallace also leaves out how Derek Jeter defended A-Rod, but this type of thing is only used to show what a great guy Jeter is as opposed to being used for the media to look in the mirror occasionally about their treatment of A-Rod.

"Why would he be a distraction?'' Jeter told reporters. "You guys (in the media) may be a distraction to him if you ask him questions, but I've never seen how someone can be a distraction to a team, you know what I mean? Because we don't have to deal with it.

"As far as (reporters) being a distraction to him, I'm sure he probably gets tired of answering questions. There's no way he can be a distraction to us."

For Yankees fans, the bottom line is this: On July 4, 2013, Alex Rodriguez made it clear that there will be no Independence Day for them, not from him, anyway.

And herein lies my issue with Wallace Matthews writing this column. Wallace wants to rip A-Rod for being overpaid and wants to rip him for daring to work to come back from his injury so he can re-join the Yankees team. The bottom line is Wallace doesn't want A-Rod to come back because he wants to keep calling A-Rod useless. So Wallace decides to start ripping A-Rod for even daring to not give up on the Yankees.

So if A-Rod came out and stated he was just quitting baseball, would Wallace Matthews applaud this decision? Obviously he wants the Yankees to be rid of A-Rod, so does Wallace think it is a noble endeavor for A-Rod to just quit now and not try to play for the Yankees this season? Something tells me if A-Rod quit on the Yankees Wallace would rip him for that. It's a no-win situation that A-Rod has put himself in with the New York media. No matter what he does, they will criticize him. What's so funny is that is it incredibly easy to criticize A-Rod, but still the New York media has to resort to accusing him of insurance fraud and mocking his attempts to play out the remaining years of his contract. It's over the top at times.

In other words, perish those thoughts of early retirement or demanding a trade or being willing to negotiate a payout of the five years remaining on his contract.

Because quitting on the Yankees or demanding a trade is a much more team-oriented way of Alex Rodriguez ending his career. Can you imagine how Wallace Matthews would tear into A-Rod if he demanded a trade or just retired? Wallace would destroy A-Rod for daring to demand a trade after all the money the Yankees gave him and how patient they were with his struggles. Wallace would call A-Rod a "quitter" if he just retired now. There's no doubt in my mind this is what would happen. So for Wallace to suggest A-Rod take early retirement or demand a trade is ridiculous because if A-Rod did either of these things we would still get a shitty column saying that A-Rod is not Lou Gehrig.

Alex Rodriguez sounds as if he's determined to remain a Yankee until the bitter end.

Dedication and the unwillingness to give up in the face of increased scrutiny and adversity. These are not characteristics you want in a professional athlete.

The objectionable part is that A-Rod is trying to portray himself as fighting the good fight, a noble man attempting to triumph over an army of haters.

What is objectionable to me is that Wallace Matthews doesn't realize this statement is half-true. I don't think A-Rod is fighting the good fight, but ignoring the Biogenesis scandal, he really is attempting to triumph over an army of haters. The army of haters are the writers like Wallace Matthews who will criticize A-Rod no matter what decision he makes. If A-Rod quits, he gets called a quitter, if A-Rod fights back from an injury, he's told he isn't wanted.

Just about every bit of the imagined "adversity" Alex Rodriguez thinks he is confronting is of his own making.

To an extent this is true. I'm not sure the injury he suffered to his hip was of his own making, but I guess that injury is sort of his fault for being a human.

Also, Wallace is making words up that A-Rod spoke now. Go search the Bob Nightengale interview with A-Rod. Here's the link. I'll wait. Do a search for the word "adversity." You won't find it because at no point did A-Rod use that word to describe what he is facing. So I'm not sure where Wallace's "adversity" reference comes from since A-Rod never actually used this word. I would expect nothing less from Wallace though. He has plenty of ammo to criticize A-Rod, yet he insists on stretching the truth even the tiniest bit to make A-Rod seem worse than he is. So Wallace has used a word in parenthesis quoting A-Rod that A-Rod didn't ever say.

He is the one who chose to live a high-profile lifestyle, and then complained about all the media attention it draws, sort of like the kid who kills his own parents and then begs for leniency on the grounds he is an orphan.

Except A-Rod is worse than a murderer. He's like a murderer of murderers except that he is a murderer of murderers that only murders puppies, kittens, children and rare pandas when he isn't murdering murderers.

He is the one who chose to play in high-stake, possibly illegal, poker games -- and then to continue playing in them after MLB and the Yankees ordered him not to.

Michael Jordan played high-stake poker games all the time. I guess because he is Michael Jordan then that is no big deal. Charles Barkley and Charles Oakley played in these games as well. My point is that A-Rod isn't the first athlete to pay in high-stake poker games.

He is the one who chose to put part of the blame for his steroid abuse on his cousin Yuri Sucart -- and then to continue to employ him as a go-fer after the Yankees ordered him not to.

He is the one who chose to have his hip surgeon, Dr. Bryan Kelly, speak to a reporter and lay out a preemptive denial that his hip problems were caused by steroid abuse after his team had ordered the doctor to keep all information about A-Rod's medical condition confidential.

I don't think anyone will argue A-Rod has handled himself well throughout his career. This still doesn't explain why A-Rod should be criticized for working hard to re-join the Yankees this year. Also, the Yankees do a lot of "ordering" don't they? Maybe the team should order itself to develop some better organizational minor league depth so when injuries occur they aren't struggling to find backups.

He is the one who chose to give an interview to a national magazine ripping Derek Jeter.

That's really what this is about. Writers like Wallace Matthews won't ever forgive A-Rod for ripping Derek Jeter. All coverage of A-Rod will remain negative for time immemorial due to his previous comments about Derek Jeter.

He is the one who, while in the midst of a horrendous October slump in the middle of a series his team was about to get swept out of, chose to proposition a woman in the field-level seats at Yankee Stadium, in full view of teammates, fans and team officials.

Again, with so many things that A-Rod has done wrong why pick one criticism that had no impact on his performance on the field and is irrelevant to his return from injury?

But taken together, they paint a picture of a man living a life of singular privilege, without boundaries or respect for any authority other than his own.

It's almost like someone who will make $353 million in his career is used to playing by his own rules. Imagine that. How unforeseen.

But to live that life of privilege and wealth and try to portray it as the equivalent of working on a chain gang? That is an insult and an affront.

I'm assuming everyone who reads this blog can read English and is literate, so go read that Bob Nightengale interview with A-Rod and see if at any point you feel like he is portraying himself as working on a chain gang. He says the typical A-Rod denial of the Biogenesis accusations, but mostly tries to show resolve to bounce back from his injuries and contribute to the Yankees this season. The statements he makes about doubters and people who don't like him is sort of true. Wallace Matthews' column is an example of this. He is criticizing A-Rod for showing resolve and trying to live up to his massive contract. Naturally, Wallace wants to portray A-Rod in a false light simply because Wallace is one of the doubters and will criticize A-Rod no matter what he does. It's so easy to criticize A-Rod, but you can always tell which writers truly don't like him by how they will over-criticize him and try to twist words A-Rod says to paint them in a negative light.

But for more than 15 years now, Alex Rodriguez has lived in that upper-echelon and enjoyed its incredible perks.

Now, he tries to make you believe that his life is no different from that of a Roman gladiator who has just been given the thumbs-down by the bloodthirsty Colosseum crowd. He portrays it as the fight of his life.

A-Rod may get suspended for 100 games due to the Biogenesis situation and he is a 38 year old man who just had serious hip surgery. It is a fight for his career right now.

On this day 74 years ago, Lou Gehrig never knew the joy of having children, the security of earning even $100,000 in a year or the satisfaction of seeing 40 candles on his birthday, and called himself lucky.

The prospect of immediate death changes a person's perspective on the world. Anyone who knows someone who has experienced the prospect of immediate death knows this is true. So this isn't exactly an apples-to-apples comparison. Lou Gehrig was a great guy and A-Rod isn't. If we compared Derek Jeter to Mother Teresa then Jeter would come off looking pretty bad too.

If he really wants to know why more people aren't on his side, the answer is right there, etched in stone in his own words, thoughts and deeds.

While this is true, would quitting his rehab from the hip injury, demanding a trade or simply retiring now make him a better person in terms of his thoughts and deeds? Of course not. I don't understand why Wallace thinks quitting or demanding a trade would suddenly make A-Rod a better person. Wallace doesn't want A-Rod back on the Yankees team and would criticize A-Rod for quitting on the Yankees. The only thing A-Rod could do to please Matthews is up and die. At least then A-Rod could give an inspirational speech and the parallel to Lou Gehrig would sound more reasonable.

3 comments Writers Says What Makes Jeter Great Can't Be Found in the Box Score; Chokes to Death on Own Hyperbole

We all love the Yankees' Core 4. Well not everyone loves them, but the sports media certainly does seem to greatly enjoy discussing the Core 4's (I hate using that term, it annoys me) wonderful virtues and I am very surprised there hasn't been a comic book series featuring Andy Pettitte, Derek Jeter, Jorge Posada, and Mariano Rivera as superheroes. Fuck G.I. Joe, these four guys are the real American heroes. Derek Jeter is probably the biggest source of the media's love and whenever the media talks about him we always get to hear about his intangibles and leadership. The hyperbole is often too much for one person to bear. The Jeter gets the hyperbole treatment today from Howard Bryant and then later Wallace Matthews turns a non-story into why Joba Chamberlain is not like Mariano Rivera. Wallace clears up that Joba and Rivera aren't similar just in case anyone was getting the two pitchers confused.

But first, it is hyperbole galore involving another sportswriter who refuses to let Jeter's achievements speak for themselves. There has to be hyperbole when describing The Jeter. If there is no hyperbole or a listing of The Jeter's intangibles then how would we all know how great he is? Sportswriters must continuously tell us about The Jeter's leadership abilities or intangibles or else they think we will all forget.

THE MAGIC OF baseball will always live in the storytelling -- the grandeur of Ruth, the Midwestern identification with Musial, the unbreakable Robinson and the complex defiance and moral ambiguity of Bonds.

Actually, the magic of baseball will also always live in the exciting baseball games that are played. What am I talking about? We all know sportswriters only care about the stories surrounding a game, not the game itself. It's like they insist on turning a sport into a sports soap opera. Also, what the fuck is up with all these writers (Terence Moore does it too) talking about "magic" in reference to baseball? 

It's what gives life to the statistics.

A player's performance on the field relevant to other players' performance on the field is actually what gives life to statistics. The storytelling gives life to made up bullshit used to tell anecdotal stories about a player, while the statistics give the story on how one player compared to other players.

Unfortunately, in the age of Moneyball and fantasy leagues, the numbers have been detached from, and become more important than, the players.

This doesn't make sense. How can the numbers have become detached from the players and yet still used by "Moneyball" (and screw you for using that generic term for anything related to advanced statistics) and fantasy leagues to evaluate players? Isn't the criticism of advanced statistics that the numbers often are TOO attached to a player, to where his leadership and other intangibles aren't taken into account? Not to mention, if Howard Bryant knows how to run a fantasy league without numbers and statistics I would love to hear this idea. The very idea he is criticizing fantasy leagues for only taking numbers into account is ridiculous. Numbers are what defines a fantasy league. Without these numbers you have no way of playing in the fantasy league or determining who is winning the fantasy league.

The Yankees' Derek Jeter has defied the impact of the two most influential elements of his time: the institutional shift toward quantitative analysis and the cynical lust for home runs, fueled by performance-enhancing drugs.

That's the narrative, even though it isn't entirely true. Jeter didn't defy quantitative analysis. He always had a high OBP and he tended to walk a lot. His fielding wasn't always the talk of Sabermetricians, but as a batter Jeter didn't really defy much qualitative analysis. As far as talking about a cynical lust for home runs, Jeter didn't defy this lust, he simply didn't hit a lot of home runs. There are plenty of quality players during the Steroid Era who didn't hit a lot of home runs. It feels like Howard Bryant is trying to give unique characteristics to The Jeter that really weren't exactly unique to The Jeter.

But with Jeter, the visual has always been better than the numerical -- and there's never been a better time to appreciate that than in his absence,

The perfect time to appreciate Jeter visually is when he isn't on the field to be visualized? I'm not sure how that can be a true statement because you can't visualize his greatness when he isn't on the field. Of course, maybe Bryant is giving The Jeter credit for being injured and his not playing at all shows exactly how great he is...which is actually what it seems like Bryant is doing. Now Jeter is getting credit for not doing anything at all. Must be nice.

which only underscores his longevity.

The fact Derek Jeter is injured gives us a better chance to appreciate how great he is. Just visualize it! He gets credit for being on the field and credit for being injured. Not talking about how great The Jeter is only underscores how great he is. When Derek Jeter hits into a double play, it is just a reminder of how clutch he has been. When Jeter wrecks his car and kills a pedestrian, it only reminds us of how good he is at driving a car usually and not killing pedestrians while doing so.

For years, most stats guys never liked him as much as his All-Star rivals at shortstop: Alex Rodriguez, Nomar Garciaparra and Miguel Tejada.

I think Bryant is using "for years" a bit too liberally here. Alex Rodriguez was a better player than Derek Jeter, but a blanket statement like this really means nothing. Saying "for years" may be overstating what a generalized group of people think. The stats crowd never liked Jeter's defense, his fans who calling him "Captain Clutch" and the hyperbolic bullshit written about him. Basically the stats crowd don't like things like this Howard Bryant article that praises Jeter effusively while over-using hyperbole.

Jeter most clearly defined his essence on separate occasions in the 2001 ALDS against the A's.

He "defined his essence." You can't make these things up when talking about The Jeter, you just have to realize these are the types of phrases that sportswriters will use when discussing him. It's always a pleasure to read another sportswriter giving Derek Jeter a tongue bath.

Blame Jeremy Giambi for not sliding or Oakland's bats for not getting that big hit; credit Mike Mussina for keeping the A's scoreless. But while the scorebook registers Jeter's play as simply an out -- albeit one that was 9-to-6-to-2 -- it demoralized the A's.

This play didn't demoralize the A's any more than the fact they couldn't score off Mike Mussina at any other point during this game I guess. It must be a wonderful feeling to be inside the head of professional athletes and always know their inner most thoughts. I will have to ask Bill Simmons or Howard Bryant how this must feel. They KNOW what emotions teams are experiencing in their heads. Howard Bryant isn't speculating just so it will make the point he wants to prove look better, not at all, he knows the A's were demoralized by Jeter's play.

The second defining moment came two nights later, with the A's spent, wondering as the noise cascaded on them just how they were here playing a deciding Game 5 at Yankee Stadium, how they had let the series slip away. Terrence Long hit a foul ball along the third base line that Jeter chased and caught, spilling into the stands. It was, again, just another out, F6, but on the field it was a referendum of championship toughness. The Yankees had it. The A's didn't.

Unfortunately the Yankees didn't have enough championship toughness to actually win a championship. They lost in seven games to the Arizona Diamondbacks. These were two great plays by Jeter though, I can't pretend they weren't.

That intangibles notion is murky, of course, and complicated.

Most likely because intangibles are intangible and there is no one way to measure them, so anytime a writer says a player has "intangibles off the charts" or "he leads the league in intangibles" it is just bullshit. There is no chart because you can't measure intangibles and there is no leaderboard for intangibles because there is no way to accurately track them. Intangibles are essentially a great excuse for a writer to explain an athlete's success. Russell Wilson/Tim Tebow have a ton of intangibles, Cam Newton/Jay Cutler do not. Derek Jeter displays leadership qualities through the example he sets and has all of the intangibles a team wants in the face of a franchise. Adrian Gonzalez is too quiet to be a leader and he didn't have the intangibles to succeed in Boston.

Jeter played in an era when everyone was suspected of PED use. For those choosing to believe the shortstop that he was, is and always has been a clean ballplayer, the monument to his fidelity and greatness lies in his old-school bona fides. Jeter, along with possibly Ken Griffey Jr., is the only player in the modern game whose iconic moments were generated by all five tools

I would argue this isn't true, but then that would lead to a discussion about Jeter's defense and that would be a losing argument. You can't make an error on a ground ball that you can't get to. I will say that. In typical "giving Jeter a tongue bath" fashion Howard Bryant is too caught up in worshiping Jeter to pay attention to the fact he is wrong here. Where are the iconic moments brought on by Jeter's base-running or throwing arm? Those are the other parts of being a five-tool player.

-- not just by standing in the batter's box and hitting another home run in a game that encouraged nothing but.

Yeah, home runs are bad! Derek Jeter was the kind of five-tool player who hit for power, but didn't hit home runs. He gets credit for hitting for power, but also gets credit for not having too much power. Because we all know a player who uses PED's could never hit between 15-20 home runs in a season. PED's always make a player hit 50 home runs or more. No matter what, The Jeter wins. He didn't hit too many of those dreaded home runs and that's a good thing. Albert Pujols is an asshole for standing in the batter's box and hitting a home run, just like he was encouraged to do.

Like Jackie Robinson, Jeter is pure baseball

This is the hyperbole that Howard Bryant is choking to death on. He's "pure baseball" you guys. This is as opposed to Alex Rodriguez, who is 57.56% baseball. He's not pure.

He will be remembered for his baserunning (the clever beating of the shift by swiping third base that he made routine).

He will be remembered for the anecdotal evidence of his greatness. The Jeter will be remembered for the times he stole second base and demoralized the opposing team, allowing Alex Rodriguez to hit a dreaded home run. A-Rod didn't hit that home run, Derek Jeter allowed it to happen. Historians will recall how Jeter would provide leadership that made the Yankees pitchers pitch better during the game. He led them to pitch well. Years later we can remember how Jeter's mere presence at shortstop showed us that anything is possible, which inspired Barack Obama to run for President.

He will be equally celebrated for his fielding and throwing. (Even though he doesn't rank anywhere near the top 1,000 in career defensive WAR, you can't deny the Flip, the nailing of Arizona's Danny Bautista at third in the 2001 World Series or the flying leap into the crowd against the Red Sox in the summer of '04.)

Oh yes, those three plays will definitely overshadow his lack of range on hundreds of other plays.

See, this is what we are up against. Idiots like Howard Bryant favor the anecdotal evidence and small memorable sample sizes over the hundreds of other plays that can be used to measure Jeter's ability to play shortstop defensively.

Not that he couldn't power the ball out of the ballpark too -- there was the first-pitch leadoff home run in Game 4 of the 2000 Series when the Mets had won the night before, and the two-out, full-count walk-off home run the following year in Game 4 against Arizona.

BUT HE WASN'T ONE OF THOSE POWER HITTING JERKS WHO ONLY CARE ABOUT HITTING HOME RUNS!

Again, Jeter gets credit for not being a home run hitter, but then Howard Bryant offers evidence of Jeter's home run hitting ability as another of his positive attributes. The Jeter does no wrong. He's the exception to the rule unless a sportswriter needs to use anecdotal evidence to show he is a part of the rule.

As if that wasn't enough, there's also the imprint he's had on the Yankees, the first homegrown star to lead the franchise to the World Series since Mickey Mantle. (1977-78 belonged to Reggie, not Munson.)

Somewhere Mariano Rivera, Jorge Posada, Andy Pettitte, and Bernie Williams are shaking their heads angrily. I'm pretty sure they were homegrown players too.

He became the signature player for the game's signature team when it returned to power, and in an era of drugs and cynicism and ruined reputations, he never embarrassed the sport, his team or, most important, his family name.

Jeter always banged actresses and models, but ONLY IN THE MOST CLASSY OF WAY!

There is no metric for that. Just a magical story.

There is no metric for measuring how many times this same column discussing Jeter's magical intangibles and leadership abilities has gotten written. Maybe Jeter will stay on the disabled list all year so that way he can further his legacy by being absent from the game of baseball. Jeter doesn't even have to play, the fact he isn't playing and is injured shows us what a great player he is.

Now Wallace Matthews tells Joba Chamberlain that he isn't worthy of wearing the Yankees uniform. He'll never be Mariano Rivera! NEVER!

Sunday morning, some 18 hours after Chamberlain had warned Rivera in full view of reporters and fans about "shushing him," it was Rivera, not Chamberlain, who offered an apology.

Yes, Wallace Matthews is writing an entire column about Joba Chamberlain "shushing" Mariano Rivera. This is news, people!

There's nothing like creating a story where there isn't one.

It was Rivera, not Chamberlain, who assumed the responsibility for defusing the incident.

It was Rivera, not Chamberlain, who expressed true regret that it ever took place.

And it was Rivera, once again, who demonstrated that there is no one quite like him in professional sports.

Rivera is a great closer and a great guy. One baseball player "shushing" another baseball player is not cause for a story. It just isn't. What this is really about is Wallace Matthews wants to perform a tongue bath on Rivera and a hit job on Chamberlain. Two birds with one stone.

In an ugly and embarrassing dugout incident Saturday night, Chamberlain was making it difficult for Rivera to conduct an interview, so Rivera politely asked his teammate to lower his voice.

What Wallace leaves out is Rivera was doing an interview on the topic of how big of a douchebag Joba Chamberlain is. The interview was going to be in a new magazine called "Joba Chamberlain: Asshole," which is a magazine that is going to be about what a huge asshole Joba Chamberlain is. You can sort of see why Joba was asking Rivera to lower his voice.

Chamberlain responded by warning Rivera not once, but twice -- in tones that contained a hint of threat -- "Don't ever shush me again."

I couldn't find the audio of this incident, but I do like how Wallace Matthews (and other reporters on the scene) painted it as Rivera being meek and quiet, while Joba Chamberlain was the big, bad bully. Joba was talking with his family by the way. He's an asshole, but Rivera was conducting an interview and Joba was talking to his family. Overall, there's no right or wrong because this is a non-story that the New York media turned into a story because it involved Mariano Rivera.

That one came from Mariano Rivera, who took it upon himself to apologize to the media and the fans, because "unfortunately it happened in front of you guys, and it shouldn't happen. We apologize and we move on."

Rivera is a good guy and this isn't really a story.

Meanwhile, Joba was as sullen and defiant as a teenager caught cutting school, insisting that a 27-year-old middle reliever publicly warning a 43-year-old man, who also happens to be the best who has ever done what he does for a living,

I can picture Joba Chamberlain sitting in the corner of the locker room wearing a Minor Threat t-shirt with a zipped up hoodie over his head while chain-smoking cigarettes and trying to trip his teammates as they walk by. What a picture Wallace is painting.

was "not a big deal," that two professional baseball players arguing in front of fans was "not an issue in the first place," and rebuking media members who had the nerve to be within earshot when he issued his warning, "This is not a story."

And you know what? He's right. It's a non-story. Two teammates got into a little verbal tussle. It happens frequently during the course of a 162 game season.

I wonder if Derek Jeter had asked Rivera to be quiet if the media would be reporting on it breathlessly? They probably would report it, but would say that Jeter asked Rivera "jokingly" and Rivera shot back "in a teasing manner," and then they would chalk it up to two good friends joking around with each other. This is pure speculation obviously, but I can't imagine the media would frame a discussion between Rivera and Jeter in the same way.

and delivered what to the Yankees should be the most chilling line of all, and a fitting epitaph to his Yankees career: "I wouldn't change it. I wouldn't change anything I do in life."

Joba is a moron, but before putting an epitaph on his career with the Yankees don't forget how badly the Yankees fucked up Joba during his Yankee career. They enforced the "Joba rules" and switched him back and forth from a starter to a reliever early in his career. They did the same thing with Phil Hughes and I would bet if you asked any pitcher whether this is easy to go through they would say "no," especially early in a pitcher's career. Then Joba had to have Tommy John surgery too. So Joba is an ass, but his Yankee career isn't entirely his fault in my opinion. He got jerked around a lot.

But for Joba Chamberlain to say he not only would not change what he said Saturday night, but would neither change anything he has done in his life?

Think maybe you are reaching a bit for a story or trying too hard to let Joba's own words make him look like an asshole? So when Rivera retires and says, "I wouldn't change anything" in regard to his career will Wallace Matthews write a column eviscerating Rivera for not wanting to change Game 7 of the 2001 World Series? Of course not. Wallace wants to be offended and upset by what Joba says, so he gets offended and upset by what Joba says.

That is not the kind of person who is fit to succeed Mariano in any way.

I don't think Joba Chamberlain was ever succeeding Rivera and I also don't think there is a morality clause that is part of the requirements that must be met to be the Yankees closer.

In fact, that is not the kind of person fit to represent the New York Yankees, at least not the Yankees typified by Rivera, Derek Jeter and Andy Pettitte.

Maybe if Chamberlain admits to taking PED's he will be a better person to represent the Yankees. That seemed to work for Andy Pettitte. Pettitte is a great guy worthy of wearing a Yankees jersey, but A-Rod is a huge, mean old cheater, while Joba Chamberlain is an embarrassment to humanity.

I don't like Joba Chamberlain, but I also love how this brief exchange with Rivera has turned into a referendum on Chamberlain as a person.

What Joba Chamberlain showed himself to be is just another of the louts we run into every day in the street, the ones who think their conversations are the only ones that matter, their business the only business that needs attending to, their lives the only lives of any importance.

Again, Wallace is turning this incident into a referendum on Chamberlain as a person. Classy. Here's the best part though...

I was not present at the dugout incident -- I was in the pressbox writing pregame notes -- but I was given a tape-recording of Rivera's interview session.

It was shocking to listen to, in several respects.

Wallace didn't even witness this exchange between Joba and Rivera! He listened to the tape and that was enough for him. He knew all he needed to know to make any further assumptions from there.

For one thing, the quietly emotional manner in which Mariano discussed his meeting earlier in the day with the family of a 10-year boy who was crushed to death by a falling airport sign was truly moving.

But the experience was tainted by straining to hear over the sound of Joba Chamberlain nearby, virtually screaming at the top of his lungs, to people in the stands about mundane matters like meeting at the hotel after the game.

That would be Joba's family who he was meeting. So it is not like he was meeting some friends for a drink.

It was all about Joba and what he wanted to do, and Mariano Rivera, or anyone else, be damned.

Did one of Wallace's media friends tell another of Wallace's media friends this is what Joba is like and now Wallace is reporting it?

Afterward, Joba alternately tried to laugh his way out of it, to hide behind his defiance, and to use his young son, Karter, as a shield. ("My son wasn't here and I was a little bothered by that.")

They were all transparent attempts to blame his boorish behavior on something else. That is a direct reflection on his character.

All of this over Rivera "shushing" Joba. Something that probably happens in a lot of locker rooms.

Is that the kind of person the Yankees should want to trust important moments in important games to?

Right, because there have never been really good relief pitchers who are also assholes.

Among the things he would not change, apparently, were his DWI arrest in 2008, his disparaging remarks to the arresting officer about Yogi Berra, his ill-chosen remarks about the manners of New Yorkers, his decision to jump on a trampoline so intensely that he broke his ankle,

WITH HIS SON! He was jumping on the trampoline with his son, which apparently is a disgraceful thing to do.

and his public declaration this spring, in spite of knowing that the Yankees had determined he is a middle reliever, that he would like to be a starter once again.

How dare he have aspirations to do something the Yankees team hasn't determined he should do! John Smoltz told the Braves he wanted to be a starter again in the early 2000's and he wasn't called an asshole.

But on an almost daily basis, we see the worst of him in the Yankees clubhouse: loud, obnoxious, faintly threatening.

Or, pretty much the way he behaved to Mariano Rivera on Saturday night.

After this season, Joba Chamberlain will be a free agent.

Knowing Mariano Rivera as I do, I can almost predict he will try to convince the Yankees that Joba is a soul worth saving and a talent worth keeping.

Rivera is a great guy. We know this. One dispute between Rivera and a teammate is not a story make.

In the same ballpark where Mariano Rivera's Yankees career nearly ended a year ago on the warning track, Joba Chamberlain's Yankees tenure surely did in the dugout, his mouth writing what will soon be the epitaph to a career that turned out to be no more than a broken promise.

This one incident shouldn't be a referendum on Joba's career, but that's where we are at I guess. I would blame injuries, the Yankees and some bad luck on Joba not living up to his promise. I guess Wallace Matthews chalks Chamberlain's Yankee years up to him talking too loud. 

4 comments Wallace Matthews Doesn't Appreciate Brian Cashman's Inability To Predict the Future

We all know by now that Andy Pettitte has retired and will no longer pitch for the New York Yankees. Unless he is planning on being like his (ex) good buddy Roger Clemens and coming back mid-season, it appears his career is over. Now it is official, it is time for the useless second-guessing of Brian Cashman to begin. Wallace Matthews feels free to lead the way. Wallace feels the Yankees need more pitching, which is true, but he mostly feels like the Yankees should have prepared for Pettitte's retirement by signing Cliff Lee or trading for another pitcher. Why did the Yankees think of trying this? I am sure it never crossed their mind to go after all the quality pitching that is just hanging out on the trade and free agent market waiting to be grabbed up.

Four months ago, Andy Pettitte walked out of the visitors clubhouse in Arlington, Texas, after letting everyone know he probably wouldn't be back.

In fairness, while the Yankees still need pitching, there have been indications Pettitte was thinking of retiring a few times in his career. Every year, there have been whispers Pettitte will retire, and Cashman did say Nova and Mitre would be the 4th and 5th starters this year previously. So I am sure replacing Pettitte was a priority, there just wasn't a hell of a lot of pitching out there that correctly fit how much the Yankees were willing to trade or pay for that pitcher's services.

Now, we are 10 days away from pitchers and catchers and he still hasn't been replaced.

That is the real story today, not that Pettitte will hold a news conference on Friday morning to make official what everyone around the Yankees should have accepted back on Oct. 22.

So Wallace's position is the Yankees should have known Pettitte would retire back in October. It's weird though, because on January 31 of this year Wallace wrote this blog entry. In this blog posting, Wallace displays his (now what appears to be) absolute certainty Pettitte was retiring with comments like these:

Of course, that also means there's no less reason to believe he's coming back, which puts us right back at square one. Maybe Pettitte is planning to make a diva-like surprise entrance at The George on Valentine's Day, which would be most un-Pettitte-like. Or maybe things will heat up this week or next.

Or maybe Pettitte really meant it when he said he was seriously leaning toward retirement this time.

It's so funny how AFTER Pettitte retires, it was just a foregone conclusion he was gone, but as of January 31st his retirement was still very much in the air. This is second-guessing reactionary journalism at its factual worst.

My point is, no one really knows, not even the Yankees and perhaps not even Pettitte. We're all going on wishful thinking, gut feelings, amateur psychology and guesswork.

So on January 31st, NOBODY KNEW A DAMN THING about Pettitte's status, yet on February 4, it was CRYSTAL FUCKING CLEAR retirement was Pettitte's choice at the time. What a difference four days makes! It's almost like Wallace heard Pettitte was retiring and felt like second-guessing Brian Cashman, ignored his past feelings on the topic, and made it sound like everyone knew Pettitte would retire...despite evidence in Wallace's own columns to the contrary.

So naturally in his February 4th article, Wallace criticizes Brian Cashman for not preparing for Pettitte's retirement, even though his January 31st blog entry said in no uncertain terms that nobody knows anything. This contradiction and crappy second-guessing is why I write here on this blog.

How about I prove Wallace is full of even more shit? Kindly:

My gut feeling, which is no more informed or accurate than yours -- or Marchand's, for that matter -- is that Pettitte wants to play but something is holding him back from committing.

So while on February 4th everyone knew Pettitte was retiring, January 31st no one knew Pettitte's status and Wallace Matthews himself (unless he has multiple personalities, which based on some of his writing I wouldn't completely rule out) said he doesn't know whether Pettitte will play in 2011 or not. In fact, Wallace thought Pettitte DID want to play in 2011. Based on this, I am not sure how he should have expected Cashman to prepare for Pettitte's retirement since Wallace didn't fully anticipate Pettitte's retirement either.

But I'm not making any predictions one way or the other for the simple reason that like everyone else specualting on this, I don't know. And maybe neither does Pettitte.

Except, on February 4th Wallace thinks that Brian Cashman should have known. Nothing like second-guessing the man for no real good reason and without consistency. Of course at ESPN this is called "journalism."

So obvious was it that Pettitte was retiring, Wallace's colleague Andrew Marchand on January 31st predicted Pettitte would be back. It sure sounds to me like Wallace Matthews needs to be called out for writing about a subject that is clearly a contradiction on something he had written prior. I will be the one doing that.

When Pettitte told them in October that he was probably going to retire, the Yankees needed a starting pitcher.

Nearly every Major League team needs a starting pitcher. This is a broad need that is relevant to nearly every MLB team.

They still need one today.

How is this possible?

Let's establish first off that quality starting pitching is expensive, over-priced in fact in many cases, and very hard to come by. So most pitchers that are free agents are too expensive or there is a reason they are free agents and haven't been signed. Acquiring a pitcher through trade requires trading prospects, which seems to be the opposite of what Cashman wants to do with the Yankees in the future.

How is it possible for the New York Yankees, the richest, most successful franchise in the history of professional sports, with a ton of cash to spend, a huge and insatiable fan base to please, and a behemoth of a ballpark to fill on a nightly basis, to have let this problem go unattended for so long?

There's nothing like a little New York Yankee panic from a sportswriter. It starts with the idea that the Yankees are naturally superior to other teams so they should get pretty much whatever they want. Reality doesn't always match this idea.

Did they not believe Pettitte, who has always been a man of his word?

Says the exact same sportswriter who didn't think Pettitte would retire just four days earlier.

Or did they just think that a starting pitcher would fall from the sky into their laps precisely when they needed one?

Says the exact same sportswriter who, in this very article, just made clear his lack of understanding on how the Yankees didn't just magically fix their starting pitcher problem with no ideas on how other than saying the Yankees are "the richest, most successful franchise in the history of professional sports."

Wallace has no suggestions on how to get another pitcher for the Yankees, but he does know they needed one and should have gotten one. Why does Wallace know this? He knows it because EVERYONE knew Pettitte was retiring, you know, except for Wallace Matthews himself.

No matter how you spin it, the Yankees' GM hasn't had much of an offseason. So far, his biggest free-agent acquisition in terms of expenditure is Derek Jeter. That will not be nearly enough.

Based on Wallace's ability to predict the future over the last couple of weeks it seems like we can book the Yankees for the 2011 World Series now. I don't mean to piss in Wallace's oatmeal, but the Yankees made the ALCS last year and they are still going to be a really good team in the upcoming 2011 season. Pettitte only made 21 starts last year, so he didn't make 30+ starts and the Yankees still made the ALCS. Giving Ivan Nova a chance to pitch with a great offense behind him isn't a terrible thing.

But what do they do on Day 2 of the season, and Days 3, 4 and 5?

The same thing they did last year. Use A.J. Burnett and Phil Hughes. There are much worse options out there. A rotation that includes two 24 year old pitchers isn't a terrible thing. I know Wallace isn't comfortable using a 24 year old pitcher unless he is merely trade bait, but with the Yankees offense they can start the season with Nova and Mitre in the rotation and see how the season goes. This isn't the sexiest option available, but it very well could be one of the smartest.

Truly, the Yankees' rotation is no more of a mess today than it was on the night they were eliminated from the ALCS. And it is no less of a mess.

Yet, there is reason to panic? Much like many other idiots, Wallace would rather the Yankees give the illusion of progress by signing pitchers who aren't that great rather than stand pat. The fact nothing changed from a team that was in the ALCS the year before isn't necessarily a cause for concern.

Behind Sabathia is Phil Hughes, who is either a stud who won 18 games last year or a 25-year-old kid who faded badly in the second half of the season.

Which happened to also be his first full year starting.

Then comes A.J. Burnett, who is either a great candidate for comeback player of the year or an incorrigible head case destined to drive every manager, GM and pitching coach he comes in contact with absolutely nuts.

This didn't seem to bother Wallace as Burnett pitched well enough in 2009 to help the Yankees win a World Series. Burnett has always been this way.

Then there is Ivan Nova, either a 23-year-old with uncommon poise and limitless potential, or a green kid with all of 42 major league innings on his résumé and a disturbing tendency to fade late in games.

Nova could be a 24 year old kid with uncommon poise and limitless potential while still having only 42 major league innings on his resume. He can be both. Guess how he will get less "green" and get more innings? By the Yankees giving him a chance to start games at the major league level. It's hard to get experience pitching in the majors by not pitching in the majors.

Wallace can't bitch about how green Nova is and then complain he is getting a spot in the rotation. Wallace's complaint is the cure for his problem with Nova.

Then we come to the scrap heap, which so far consists of Sergio Mitre, Freddy Garcia and Bartolo Colon, and may soon include Kevin Millwood,

I don't think Millwood is the worst option, depending on how much money he wants. We saw how terrible he could be last year, but when he is just average he would make a great 5th starter. How many MLB teams (even quality ones) have the 5th starter spot locked down with a quality starter? Not many, so it is not like the Yankees are alone. I know being the average isn't what the Yankees are supposed to be, but it doesn't mean it is a sign of huge trouble.

The fact that the Yankees whiffed on Lee is not Cashman's fault. Once the Phillies entered the picture, no amount of Boss Bucks was going to lure him to the Bronx.

And after Lee, there really wasn't anyone on the free-agent market worth splurging on, unless you saw the comedic value in American Idle II, the return of Carl Pavano.

So continuing his reign of idiocy, Wallace says the Yankees should have traded for a better pitcher "knowing" Pettitte would retire...even though there wasn't a great pitcher to go and get. This is also forgetting the fact that Wallace himself stated on January 31st he didn't know Pettitte would retire. That's the problem with idle bitching like this. If you don't have a solution, it makes your bitching worthless, and your bitching is even more worthless when your current statements don't match up with statements you have made in the past.

It's sad writing a column complaining a general manager should have added a quality pitcher, while also acknowledging there wasn't a quality pitcher to add, is acceptable sports journalism.

But surely something might have been done on the trade market, knowing as we all did (or should have), that Pettitte probably meant what he said.

"Knowing as we all did..." Really Wallace????????????? Here's what you said on January 31st:

My point is, no one really knows, not even the Yankees and perhaps not even Pettitte. We're all going on wishful thinking, gut feelings, amateur psychology and guesswork.

Boy, you really nailed that one!

Pay a ransom of young talent -- say Joba Chamberlain and someone previously considered untouchable, like Jesus Montero or Austin Romine or Eduardo Nuñez -- for a second-tier pitcher to plug the hole.

The was an option BEFORE Pettitte retired as well. In fact, if the Yankees were going to make a trade like Wallace suggested this is exactly what they would have done. Nothing has changed and things haven't gotten worse. If Wallace wanted the Yankees to make a trade in December, this is exactly how they would have done it, by trading talent. The trade can still be made to bring in another pitcher.

Also, did he really call Joba "young talent?" Isn't this the guy the New York media loves to berate and have essentially given up on? How are Hughes and Nova not young talent? Wallace just got done thrashing them for not being good enough starters, yet Joba Chamberlain is a "young talent."

Or, take the chance of waiting until the trade deadline to try to pluck a quality starter from a team that has dropped out of contention, by which time the Red Sox may have run so far off with the division that Cashman will be back tending bar, only this time for the benefit of no charity other than his own.

I hope everyone is paying attention to what a contradictory idiot Wallace Matthews can be. On January 15, this is the exact sentence he wrote after the Yankees signed Rafael Soriano and Wallace (claiming) full knowledge that Andy Pettitte was retired:

If it were possible to win a division in January, then the Yankees would be American League East champions today.

The way this all plays out is yet to be determined. The bottom line today is that for the 2011 season, the two best closers in baseball will pitch for the Yankees.

That in itself makes them the champions of this offseason.

And odds-on favorites to win it all once they actually start playing the games.

So less than a month later with absolutely nothing changed, the Yankees are screwed. On January 15, when Wallace knew what he didn't know on January 31st about Pettitte really being retired, the Yankees were the favorite. Now that Wallace knows now what he claims he knew then but didn't seem to know, the Yankees are screwed.

What is abhorrent is this man gets paid to cover sports and give his opinion. Stay consistent and don't lie about your positions, that's all I ask from a sportswriter. But Wallace will lie and deceive his audience so he always seems like the smartest guy in the room.

And maybe what happened last year will happen again in 2011, that the Red Sox will fail to live up to the preseason hype and guys in the Yankees' clubhouse will overachieve, and everything will turn out OK.

As of January 15, 2011 the Yankees were paper champs of the AL East. On February 4, 2011 the Yankees need to overachieve and the Red Sox need to fail for the Yankees to win the AL East. Stay consistent, that goes a long way. Anyone who wonders why there are blogs like this, well blame Wallace Matthews for not being consistent with his message. Any idiot can change his opinion depending on the day, but a real quality sportswriter can write intelligently about a team or player, be wrong, and still have a consistent message worth reading.

But that doesn't change the fact that it never should have come down to this, especially when four months ago, Pettitte told the Yankees exactly what he was going to do, and the Yankees knew exactly where that would leave them.

It makes you wonder if anyone was actually listening.

What makes me wonder is why Wallace can write articles saying one thing in January and then write something completely different in February in a failed attempt to act like he knew what was going on all along...even when written evidence says to the contrary.

0 comments Wallace Matthews Tells Us Who This Derek Jeter Guy Is

Who is this Derek Jeter guy? Or is it Jerek Deter? I don't really know, because I have never heard of him. Thankfully, Wallace Matthews is here to fix this problem and tell me a little bit about Derek Jeter. Without Matthews, God only knows how we would find these obscure players. Yes indeed, Wallace Matthews somehow thinks Derek Jeter is OVERLOOKED on the Yankees team.

Derek Jeter has more hits than any Yankee who ever played the game, which is quite a statement when you remember that the guys who are behind him have names like Ruth and Gehrig and DiMaggio and Mantle and Berra.

I had heard of those other guys, but never heard of this Jeter guy. How did he get all those hits with such little media coverage? So Jeter plays for the Yankees...does Scott Brosius still play for them too? How's Andy Hawkins looking this year? Is he or Dave LaPoint going to be the #2 starter this year?

He also has more hits than any active player in major league baseball, passing Ken Griffey Jr. in the first inning of Friday night's game between the Yankees and the Chicago White Sox at Yankee Stadium.

Ken Griffey Jr. then pulled a hamstring and went on the 15-day disabled list as he tried to pass Jeter the next night.

He's got five World Series rings, a career highlight reel that most players would kill for,

And yet, I had never heard of him and have focused on the other Yankees like Kevin Maas this whole time.

and a reputation for being a big-game player that even a few of his teammates would die for.

Don't tease me anymore, introduce me to this man. I hear he gets a ton of base hits, has a 10 on the clutchiness scale, has steely eyes that can stare down a bear...but does he date attractive brunettes? If so, I have no idea how I have overlooked this man.

And yet, in a Yankees lineup that boasts the likes of Alex Rodriguez, closing in on 600 home runs, and Robinson Cano, who is rapidly emerging as one of the best all-around hitters in the game, and Mark Teixeira, an MVP threat in every month but April, it is quite possible that Jeter, among the top five in so many offensive categories in Yankees history, may be no better than the fourth-best hitter.

(Me done pretending I don't know who Derek Jeter is)

What Wallace says here may very well be the reason Jeter is overlooked this year. Who is the fourth best hitter on the Red Sox this year? The Dodgers? Granted, many people may know that, but Jeter isn't the Yankees top hitter so there may be a reason for him to get overlooked every once in a while on the Yankees team. Not that I am saying he is overlooked, because the one thing The Jeter is not is overlooked. I could see how on a team with other great hitters the focus isn't always on him.

For 15 years, his level of performance has been so high, it is easy to take for granted.

Yet he hasn't been overlooked at all and everything about him has been reported 1,001 times already. We know almost EVERYTHING about Derek Jeter on the baseball field, and in fact, the weaknesses (defense) he has are overlooked and sometimes made up to be seen as strengths for Jeter because of what a great player he has been. He has 4 Gold Gloves and defense hasn't traditionally been his strength. That's a weakness that I think got turned into a strength by those who vote for the Gold Glove.

The only thing overlooked about Derek Jeter in the past has been his weaknesses.

But that doesn't mean he is easy to overlook, nor should he be.

Good...because he isn't overlooked at all. I am tired of typing "overlooked." Wallace Matthews, you have written a bad column.

As Andy Pettitte said after Jeter salvaged his worst outing -- and the Yankees' first come-from-behind win -- of the young season, "When anybody asks me, of all the guys you've played with, who do you want at the plate in a big situation, I mean, it's got to be him. He's the man, you know?"

Clearly this is a quote on how overlooked Derek Jeter truly is. He's the one guy Andy Pettitte wants at the plate in a big situation. When will this man get some respect?

Derek Jeter has been to 10 All-Star games, 4 Gold Gloves, won the 1996 Rookie of the Year, has received votes in 11 MVP races, and plays for the most popular team in the largest market in Major League Baseball. He is in no way overlooked nor ignored.

Or, as White Sox manager Ozzie Guillen put it a little more bluntly, "He is God."

So based on this information from Pettitte and Ozzie Guillen how could one come to the conclusion that Jeter is overlooked in any way? Sure, there may be better hitters currently on the Yankee roster, but Derek Jeter is still the guy a lot of people think about when they think about the New York Yankees.

Perhaps it is easier to appreciate Jeter from the elevated vantage point of the pitcher's mound, or from the opposing dugout, because when Jeter's own manager was asked to assess the performance of his soon-to-be 36-year-old shortstop, he started out by praising a Brett Gardner at-bat that preceded Jeter's game-winning triple before falling into familiar clichés: "Jeter's a winner ... works extremely hard ... plays smart ..." yada, yada, yada.

Perhaps Joe Girardi did this because Jeter has NEVER been overlooked on the Yankees team and in fact has probably been overpraised. A person would think Jeter is overlooked unless he/she thinks we need to see the video of Jeter diving in the stands for a foul ball isn't shown enough or his cut-off and underhand throw to the plate against the A's in the playoffs a few years ago needs to be shown a few thousand more times. Also, when I see a shortstop backhand a ground ball and jump up in the air and throws the ball to first base...I think of Derek Jeter. He's over-respected.

Girardi appreciates Jeter, he just knows there isn't much else to say about him at this point.

You expect it, see? It no longer surprises you, which it shouldn't, and in some senses, it no longer even awes you, which it should.

What else needs to be said at this point? It is not like Jeter still doesn't get enough recognition for the things he does. Why does Wallace Matthews believe we must stay in continual awe of him?

At an age when most shortstops are playing golf or, in the American League, DHing, Jeter continues to play the field as if he were 22 years old, and on every at-bat, continues to tear down the baseline as if someone were chasing him with a knife.

He's gritty, gutsy. Sentences like this are the very reason The Jeter is not overlooked. The fact this article tries to make him seem that way is ridiculous.

Watching Jeter in 2010 must be what it was like to watch Ruth in the late '20s, or DiMaggio in the late '40s or Mantle in the mid-'60s -- watching a great player who should be in the winter of his career continuing to play as if it were midsummer.

Babe Ruth was 33 and 34 years old in the late '20's, Joe DiMaggio was 33 and 34 years old in the late 40's and Mickey Mantle was 33 and 34 years old in the mid-60's. They were all still playing at a high level at this point, but the other two players, except for Babe Ruth, were declining rapidly or no longer playing well at the age Derek Jeter currently is. So basically I am saying, it is like watching those players, except Jeter is playing better than Mantle and DiMaggio at an older age. This is why no one takes Jeter for granted, it's insane to say otherwise.

Opposing teams that overlook him do so at their peril; so, too, do fans who take him for granted.

I think the point Wallace wants to make with saying the same thing over and over to stretch the article out, is that Derek Jeter is awesome and nobody knows it but him. Quit taking him for granted America and start talking a little bit more about him.

Jeter probably saved a run in the fifth inning with a spectacular backhanded stop on a grounder headed for the hole,

This play may have been more routine for another shortstop, but much like Jim Edmonds, Derek Jeter has in the past forced to make the spectacular play to make up for his limited range.

I am just kidding about Edmonds. He had great range, he just slowed down for flyballs to make the catch look more spectacular.

Jeter probably saved a run in the fifth inning with a spectacular backhanded stop on a grounder headed for the hole,

A child in Section 109 didn't have enough money to buy a hot dog at the concession stand, but then he found $5 in the back pocket of his pants, which was THE EXACT AMOUNT HE NEEDED! Derek Jeter saved this boy from going hungry.

There was a puppy outside new Yankees Stadium wandering around before a game two weeks ago. Derek Jeter noticed the puppy and petted him. One day later someone found the dog and gave the puppy a permanent home. Derek Jeter saved this puppy from getting run over by a car.

All these great stories of Jeter's exploits, yet we treat The Jeter with such disdain and scorn. Shame on us all.

In the bottom of the same inning, after Gardner battled back from 0-2 to slap a changeup into right for a single, and then stole second, perhaps rattling Sox starter Freddy Garcia,

I think the fact he was on the pitcher's mound at all is what rattled Freddy Garcia. He's not a great pitcher anymore.

Jeter jumped on a hanging curveball and deposited it in the left-field seats to tie the game 4-4.

The home run gave him four for April, twice as many as either Teixeira or Rodriguez.

I am sure Wallace Matthews will be keeping score of how many home runs each of these players have at the end of the year when Tex and A-Rod have doubled The Jeter's total. Actually, I am sure Wallace won't do that. It's not as much fun to take small sample sizes and have them try to prove something when they don't say what you want them to.

The game remained tied until the seventh, when after Francisco Cervelli was hit by a pitch and Gardner singled again, Jeter fought off two 95 mph fastballs from 6-foot-6 left-hander Matt Thornton before finding one he could drive to right for a triple, scoring both runners and providing the Yankees' margin of victory.

So what's the point? It is not like people ignore how good of a shortstop Derek Jeter is. We know he is a good player and these types of things are what good players do.

"I thought I blew it," Jeter said, having just missed by a foot or so when he dunked what he considered a hittable fastball into the right-field corner two pitches earlier. "Fortunately, I got another one."

Pettitte didn't think there was anything fortunate about it. "If you need a big hit, you want him up there," he said. "He loves it. You can see it in his eyes."

His steely eyes that betray nothing to anyone...other than the fact they betray he has steely eyes and is the definition of clutchiness and grit. He has so much intestinal fortitude, he hands out guts in the locker room before the game. Alex Rodriguez's great postseason last year had nothing to do with him being a good hitter and has more to do with the fact Jeter donated guts to him to help the team out. Not only does The Jeter help the team by donating his guts to another player, he helped the team in the process. A-Rod having a good postseason last year made 2 year old in the South Bronx smile for the first time in his young life. The Jeter saved this child from being depressed and committing suicide as a teenager.

He's been successful enough times in situations just like that, that when he comes up in one, there's almost a sense of inevitability about what is going to happen.

Yet for some reason Wallace Matthews seems to believe we still overlook him. I think he is just making shit up to be honest. It is at that point if there isn't 100 articles written a month about Derek Jeter and how great he is, then everyone is overlooking him. There apparently has to be constant media coverage for The Jeter to get the appropriate amount of due for being a great player.

Said Guillen: "If he's not in the lineup, we win that game."

How many managers have said or thought that over the past 15 years? More importantly, how many more will?

I don't know what motivated Wallace Matthews to believe that a 10-time All-Star and one of the most decorated players in Yankee history has been neglected in some fashion, but he is terribly wrong. If anything, Derek Jeter has been overpraised in the past and Wallace Matthews contributes to this history of being overpraised in this column.

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention The Jeter was on the cover of Sports Illustrated this past week. I bet no one knew who that guy was in the picture with Mariano Rivera, Jorge Posada, and Andy Pettitte.

I looked all over for Wallace Matthews on the Newsday site, not even knowing he had gone to ESPN New York. What a treat it was to find him there a month or so ago.

I also want to mention that Bill Simmons' past two columns have been pretty weak. He had this column from two weeks ago where he said the following:

It's a gimmick that needs no introduction. It's a gimmick that says "I couldn't come up with a real column that has a beginning, middle and end," as well as "You're hopefully going to be entertained anyway."

Here's my little twist: We're calling this the "2010 NBA Playoffs Human Power Rankings." Why? Because I Googled "2010 NBA Playoffs Human Power Rankings" and nothing came up.

Is it possible he is running out of column ideas or just doesn't give a shit anymore because he is waiting for his ESPN contract to run out? I vote for the latter.

Then his first column this week was basically a column that said, "I have a high opinion of myself and think everyone would like to hear about how awesome my life is. Isn't it weird that I am a Celtics fan and attended an L.A. Lakers game? That's so bizarre, I may be the first Celtics fan to ever do that. Want to hear about all the cool people I know and see now that I live in Los Angeles? I don't know if you know this or not, but I am a big deal and eat at fancy restaurants that famous rappers also frequent."

This column said all of that. For me, it wasn't a bad column, but it really does seem like Bill is becoming more and more impressed with himself and all the famous and rich people that he sees. I don't know why I get this impression, possibly because he keeps name-dropping in his columns. There is just something very egotistical about a person that seems to give public a play-by-play of his life in a national sports column, as if his life is so important we should/will all be entertained by it.

For me, there is a huge difference in a column about a bigger sports topic that includes portions of one's life in that column as part of the bigger topic of the entire column about sports and a column about a person's life that includes portions of a sporting event as part of the bigger topic of the column about his life. When the sport isn't the focal point, I think the ego of the writer takes over.

Then on Thursday, Bill wrote a column that was more of a traditional column that involves reporting. Of course it is Bill Simmons-type reporting in that the column has several allusions (long allusions too, not just mere mentions) to the Boston Red Sox and how tortured the fan base was/is a total of 6 times in the first 1/3 of the column and one allusion at the end of the column. Bill also wants us to know that he is on a personal level with Steve Kerr and that access is part of his reporting in this article. So we get a lot of Steve Kerr quotes.

It's all a little weird for me personally, I feel like we haven't had a traditional Bill Simmons column in a while. I don't know if I miss it, but I am believing more and more he is done with ESPN after his contract runs out. Then he can tell stories with curse words and sexual references about how cool his life is in California and how important he feels when he sees famous people on his own personal site or for another sports website that is more lenient with what their columnists can write.