Skip to content

This just isn’t the time for Yankees to trade Alex Rodriguez

Oct 19, 2012, 1:04 AM EST

Alex Rodriguez AP

As far as I can tell, Alex Rodriguez committed two crimes this month. He played pretty horribly in the playoffs, which hardly put him among the minority of Yankees hitters, and he embarrassed his team by reportedly trying to get a woman’s digits from the dugout.

In the case of the latter, absolutely no one would have have cared it he had hit .400 in the postseason instead of .100. He’s not the first or the 100th player to try to hook up from the dugout or bullpen. And one imagines he didn’t suddenly get the idea to try it for the first time in his 2,595th major league game.

As for the former, well, he stunk up the joint, no doubt about it. And because of his salary and stature, he makes for an easy target. But it should be remembered that he was just 2 1/2 months removed from suffering a broken left hand. Even if that doesn’t explain the slow bat, it still gives him a better excuse for his struggles than anything Robinson Cano or Curtis Granderson will be able to come up with.

Going forward, Rodriguez projects as a wildly overcompensated complimentary player. He’s 37, his OPS has declined five years running and he hasn’t played in more than 140 games since 2007. The $118 million he’ll make these next five years probably makes him a good $70 million-$80 million overpaid.

That said, his defense at third isn’t bad and he’s never not been an above average hitter. Kevin Youkilis is pretty easily the best third baseman available in free agency, and if he’s a better bet than A-Rod for 2013, it’s only slightly. Both are injury prone, and Rodriguez was the superior hitter of the two this year. And considering what the Yankees would have to pay to get another team to take Rodriguez, they’d almost certainly have to spend more to replace him with Youkilis than they would if they kept him.

After Youkilis, there’s Scott Rolen, who will probably retire, and some singles-hitting stopgaps like Marco Scutaro, Jeff Keppinger, Placido Polanco and Maicer Izturis. The Yankees can re-sign Eric Chavez, but he’s not going to start.

So, if the Yankees actually want to improve their third base situation this winter, it’d likely mean giving up  at least two of their best prospects for San Diego’s Chase Headley. They could also try a prospect-for-prospect deal with the Rangers for Mike Olt, but again, that would hardly guarantee an immediate upgrade.

The way I see it, this is the worst possible time for the Yankees to trade Rodriguez. They’d have to eat the vast majority of his salary to make a deal, and they’d likely worsen the on-field product at the same time. There’s nothing to be gained except for appeasing the media and some loudmouth fans who won’t be any less likely to attend games next year just because A-Rod is still at the hot corner.

Now, there likely will come a time when eating Rodriguez’s salary in order to facilitate a deal will make sense, and the Yankees should definitely be on the lookout for a third baseman of the future if there’s one to be had. But if they trade A-Rod this winter, they’ll likely be worse for it.

113 Comments (Feed for Comments)
  1. schlom - Oct 19, 2012 at 1:17 AM

    The Padres were supposedly asking a ton for Headley leading up to the trade deadline, is the Yankees farm system good enough to satisfy the Padres?

    • xavier46 - Oct 19, 2012 at 2:36 AM

      Without emptying the entire system of any contributors between now and mid-2015, no. If they want to sell the farm for one player, maybe.

      • pjmarn6 - Oct 19, 2012 at 9:53 AM

        You don’t have to trade him just release him. If the rest of the team is down, the star is supposed to pick them up.

      • bravojawja - Oct 19, 2012 at 10:26 AM

        If the rest of the team is down, the star is supposed to pick them up.

        Absolutely right. Just release Derek Jeter. Or Robinson Cano. Or Mark Teixeira. Or Curtis Granderson. Or CC Sabathia. Or Andy Pettitte.

    • protius - Oct 19, 2012 at 8:17 AM

      Phil Hughes for Chase Headley, straight up.

      • Lukehart80 - Oct 19, 2012 at 8:45 AM

        I’m THINK this comment is just well done trolling, but because it’s a proposed trade involving the Yankees, it’s impossible to know for sure.

      • sictransitchris - Oct 19, 2012 at 8:58 AM

        I thought of a similar trade (adding a couple prospects) only because I think Hughes would do really well in a park like Petco, and the Yankees would get a good player that they could keep for a few years at a relatively low cost to help with their luxury tax woes.

      • Alex K - Oct 19, 2012 at 9:15 AM

        This is a joke, right?

      • protius - Oct 19, 2012 at 9:45 AM

        Luke:

        “I’m think” that your comments are just poorly done trolling. Read Sictransitchris’ comments, which are just below yours. I’ll elaborate.

        Petco is a very large ballpark, i.e., a pitcher friendly park. Hughes is a fly ball pitcher who gives up a lot of home runs in Yankee Stadium. He would be a good fit for the Padres, and Headley would be a good fit for the Yankees. What’s not to like?

        The Yankees have two good, young pitchers coming up to take Hughes’ spot: Pineda and Phelps. There is also the possibility that Adam Warren will be ready to pitch in the major leagues next season. Hughes was inconsistent in Yankee Stadium; perhaps a change of venue, to his California roots, will do him some good.

      • kopy - Oct 19, 2012 at 9:48 AM

        Just because Petco is a big stadium that gives pitchers some wiggle room doesn’t mean you can give the Padres a mediocre player for a good one.

      • Alex K - Oct 19, 2012 at 10:16 AM

        Petco is exactly the reason the Padres would never do this trade. Petco is very pitcher friendly which means that the Padres can more easily find a pitcher that can succeed there. Why give up a very good hitter (Headley) for something that they could find for a small amount of money?

      • protius - Oct 19, 2012 at 11:42 AM

        Kopy;

        You beg the question.

        You assume that Hughes is a mediocre pitcher. I explained his up-side. If you think he’s mediocre, then, by all means, explain his down side at Petco Par?.

      • protius - Oct 19, 2012 at 11:54 AM

        Alex K.:

        You wrote: “Petco is very pitcher friendly which means that the Padres can more easily find a pitcher that can succeed there.” Conversely, if Petco is as “pitcher friendly” as you claim, then why are the Padres the perennial doormats of their division?

        If your argument is valid, then the Padres should have at least one 20 game winner every season, and their pitching staff, in general, should be very successful. Instead the exact opposite is true; their pitching staff struggles. Hughes is a confident, seasoned vet, who has proven that he can win games in the proper environment, i.e., a large ball park.

        I believe that any realistic evaluation of his skills by a professional pitching coach or pitching scout, would justify my trust in his abilities.

      • Alex K - Oct 19, 2012 at 12:28 PM

        Protius, Your whole response is a straw man, which makes it invalid.

        As an aside – Pitcher wins is an awful way to measure a pitcher’s value or season.

      • weaselpuppy - Oct 19, 2012 at 1:35 PM

        Cano for Rick Porcello straight up

        Cano, like Headley, is about to get very expensive after next year for a team looking to be responsible with their payroll.

        Porcello, like Hughes, is a young guy with experience, that has a lot of upside given he was a #10 OA pick and is just 23….and like Hughes, he profiles well to his new home park as he’s a groundball sinker pitcher…

        PS- This is why people think Yankee fans are the biggest delusional dbags in the known Universe….because they fully expect someone to take a pile of monkeyspunk from them and get gold bars back…but when their idiocy is turned about, they start crying indignantly about how it’s not the same thing.

      • protius - Oct 19, 2012 at 1:45 PM

        Alex K.:

        Clearly, the definition of a straw man argument eludes you.

        I neither created false, fanciful or misleading arguments and blamed them on you, nor did I ignore your actual position and substitute a distorted or exaggerated version of your position; therefore, I did not create any straw man arguments. Perhaps you were thinking of something else, as you were running away from my arguments.

        My arguments are strong, and you clearly are grasping at straws to avoid addressing them, however, I will ask you again:

        If Petco is as “pitcher friendly” as you claim, then why are the Padres the perennial doormats of their division? Where is the straw man here?

        If your arguments are valid, then why don’t the Padres have at least one 20 game winner every season? Is there a straw man hiding in this question?

        If your arguments are valid, then why isn’t the Padres pitching staff in general successful? How about in this question?

        Can you explain why the Padres pitching staff in general struggles? Anything?

        Hughes is a confident, seasoned vet, who has proven that he can win games in the proper environment, i.e., a large ball park. What makes you believe that he can not win 20 games for the Padres? Hello, scare crow!

        BTW: Hughes’ salary for 2012 is a very affordable $3.2 million.

      • Alex K - Oct 19, 2012 at 2:18 PM

        So me saying that it is easier for the Padres to find a pitcher to succeed in their pitcher friendly ballpark means that they should have a 20 game winner, an elite pitching staff, and rule the division? Got ya.

        The above is the definition of ignoring my actual position and substituting a distorted or exaggerated version of my position.

        I’m not saying Hughes stinks…that would be stupid. I am saying that Headley is better than Hughes. I am also saying that because of their ballpark the Padres could more easily find someone to pitch well than hit well.

      • protius - Oct 19, 2012 at 3:05 PM

        Weasel:

        Your moronic schadenfreude rant, has only succeeded in making you look like an impotent tool.

        To begin with, the Yankees already have a very good pitching staff, so why would they even consider trading one of their better hitters to strengthen an area that is already strong?

        Here’s an insight you: Only losers and jealous losers claim to have an understanding of a Yankee fans agenda, and that is probably because they support a team that struggles to succeed.

        Any person with normal brain function can see that your psychosis is not a problem caused by any Yankee fan; yours is the problem of a fan who supports a team that struggles to win. So Yankee fans have to ask ourselves; Who is this psychotic pendejo, and is he capable of discerning the difference between a delusional douche bag and his first cousin? The most likely answer is, probably not.

        Who is the villain in this case, the Yankee fan who simply proposes a topic for discussion, or the jealous, inbred loser who needs to appeal to popularity, and concoct a shrill, absurd scenario, packed with angry dialog? Weasel, what’s even more idiotic then your inane rage, is that from a practical POV, your arguments don’t make much sense.

        Phil Hughes is not “a pile of monkeyspunk.” As I explained, he is a competent and competitive pitcher who should thrive in Petco Park. If you have a human response to this observation, which doesn’t include dropping a load in your pants and throwing it at your keepers, then I’d like to read it; otherwise you can just knuckle-walk your way back to your cage.

      • protius - Oct 19, 2012 at 4:09 PM

        Alex K. :

        Your problem lies in your failure to understand that I am actually addressing your Argument: Petco is a “pitcher friendly” ball park, and what that idea implies, i.e., the ease of finding a pitcher to regularly succeed in pitcher friendly Petco Park is a chimera.

        If it were as easy as you claim it is, then the Padres would not be the doormats of their division, they would have a successful pitching staff, and in all likelihood, have a 20 game winner.

        As anyone can plainly see, I make the connection between the ease of finding pitchers to compete in Petco Park, and the friendliness of the park’s confines.

        Next, you still haven’t addressed any of the questions I’ve asked you, however, if you’d like to avoid answering them, I completely understand.

      • Alex K - Oct 19, 2012 at 4:45 PM

        What you fail to realize is that your distorting my point and making huge leaps in logic to support your terrible trade idea. It doesn’t matter how fancy the words you use are, you’re still making a straw man argument.

        Pitcher friendly does not equal any pitcher turns into Roy Halladay. It simply means that it is harder to hit there. Since you won’t let it go I will answer your questions one by one:

        1. Wins are a team statistic, so just because a ballpark is harder to hit in it doesn’t mean the team will win a lot of games. They only play half their games in the home ballpark. So, no, they shouldn’t have a 20 game winner every year.
        2. It takes more than good pitching to contend in your division.
        3. Just because it is easier to find pitchers that can succeed in a ballpark doesn’t mean it is easy (This, I feel, is the crux of the argument. You seem to have taken me saying it is easier as it is easy.).

      • albertmn - Oct 19, 2012 at 4:59 PM

        To protius, the overly verbose internet troll – Your point about Petco being a pitcher’s park (implying that the Padres should rule the West for that reason alone) ignores the fact that you can’t win without both pitching AND hitting. They don’t have 20 game winners because their hitters stink, and have to hit in that same pitcher’s park. The points made by others are not only valid, they are more correct than yours. But, feel free to respond with 200 word rambling nonsense.

      • protius - Oct 19, 2012 at 6:01 PM

        Alex K.:

        Clearly, you are hoist on your own petard. Your responses are typical straw man arguments, i.e., characterizing my positions in the extreme is exaggeration. This is the argument that I am addressing: “Petco is very pitcher friendly which means that the Padres can more easily find a pitcher that can succeed there (Alex K: October 19, 10:16AM).”

        This is how I responded: “The ease of finding a pitcher to regularly succeed in pitcher friendly Petco Park is a chimera.” This is how I explained this argument: “If it were as easy as you claim it is, then the Padres would not be the doormats of their division, they would have a successful pitching staff, and in all likelihood, have a 20 game winner. As anyone can plainly see, I make the connection between the ease of finding pitchers to compete in Petco Park, and the friendliness of the park’s confines.”

        You, on the other hand, need to appeal to the extreme to have any kind of argument at all, i.e., huge leaps in logic, terrible trade idea, fancy words, a pitcher of Roy Halladay’s quality. Where is the leap of logic, huge or otherwise, in any of the above statements?

        You haven’t yet proved that my proposal is a bad trade idea; therefore, no one has any reasonable grounds accept this argument as legitimate.

        If you find my choice of words too “fancy” for your liking, then that is your problem and not mine.

        You beg the question. You assume that I meant or implied that pitching in Petco turns a pitcher into a Roy Halladay type pitcher. You have no proof that I meant or implied this idea.

        Thank you for finally addressing my questions, however, I did notice that you conveniently sidestepped the issue of identifying the straw man in each of those questions.

        Question three: You are trying to distinguish between easy and easier. In other words, you have chosen to split hairs to save face.

        I have taken you to say exactly what you have said and exactly what you have implied, i.e., that because Petco Park is “pitcher friendly” certain things and events take place with fewer or less problems, little difficulty. They take less effort, thought or reflection. They are capable of being accomplished or acquired with ease.

      • protius - Oct 19, 2012 at 7:00 PM

        albertmn:

        I only seem verbose to you because I can articulate my arguments, and you find that intimidating. Sorry, but I do not intend to dumb down my approach to accommodate your intellectual insecurity. If my style moves you to Ad Hominem attack, then I think that every person who reads your tirade will know you for exactly what you are: The blog’s emotional weak sister.

        You wrote: “Your point about Petco being a pitcher’s park (implying that the Padres should rule the West.” Your appeal to the extreme is a straw man argument, that is, it is a distortion of my position. We both know that I do not argue that the Padres should rule anything. Your claim is very weak.

        You wrote: “They don’t have 20 game winners because their hitters stink.” In case you missed it, this is not a discussion about hitters; it’s a discussion about pitchers. If you can’t grasp the topic of discussion, then why should anyone take you seriously? If you are here to play the fool for my amusement, then you have succeeded. LMAO

        You wrote: “The points made by others are not only valid, they are more correct than yours.” To begin with, you beg the question. You assume that the validity and correctness of arguments made by others has already been decided, when in fact those arguments are still under discussion. Next, your argument relies on your own testimony to prove its truth value; therefore, you are engaged in circular thinking. Pardon me, but if you are going to intellectually chase your tail, I am just going to sit back and laugh with the rest of the readers. I’ll be sure to try the veal, and tip my waitress and bartender well.

        You wrote: “But, feel free to respond with 200 word rambling nonsense.” Clearly, the only nonsense here is yours. Your arguments are irrelevant, consequently, you are forced to rely on an appeal to reductionism, and that is pathetic.

      • Alex K - Oct 20, 2012 at 10:40 AM

        Very simply – the huge leap in logic is that since I said it was easier, not easy, just not quite as difficult to find a pitcher to succeed you posed those questions as conditions that would be met if Petco was as pitcher friendly as I implied. That was the straw man you built. That those conditions would be met since Petco is pitcher friendly, which was never my argument.

        You also stated, “Petco is a very large ballpark, i.e., a pitcher friendly park.” (10/19/12 @ 9:45 am)before I even used the words pitcher friendly, so you obviously agree that Petco helps fly ball pitchers.

      • protius - Oct 20, 2012 at 4:33 PM

        Alex K.:

        You are exaggerating and distorting my position; you have created a straw man argument to save face.

        In your post of October 19, 4:45 PM you write: “Just because it is easier to find pitchers that can succeed in a ballpark doesn’t mean it is easy.” The word easier cannot be defined without using the word easy. The two words are inseparable; their definitions share the same words. Now read this analogy carefully: To catch a fish is easy; to buy a fish is easier. This idea is not a huge leap of logic, i.e., acquiring a fish is not a difficult task.

        You claim it is easier to find a pitcher to succeed in Petco Park, and I claim it’s easy, i.e., to find a pitcher to succeed in Petco Park is not a difficult task. Your claim that this is a huge leap of logic is an exaggeration and is therefore, a straw man argument. You can’t keep creating these absurd verbal obstacles and hope that by obfuscation and slight-of-hand that I will give you a free pass.

        You wrote: “Petco is very pitcher friendly which means that the Padres can more easily find a pitcher that can succeed there (Alex K.: October 19, 10:16 AM).” Who said “pitcher friendly” first is irrelevant. The undeniable and most important fact here, is that you agreed with me.

        I asked you some questions that were directly related to the concepts of easy/easier and “pitcher friendly.” None of these question were false scenarios, or distortions, exaggerations or misrepresentations of your position, which are the only criteria that constitute a straw man argument. These questions were, as you have already conceded, conditions.

        I asked you to deal with reasonable conditions that you should have met handily to sustain your argument, but you couldn’t, thus you have failed to prove your point. Satisfying conditions is the a posteriori process of proving your arguments during the course of discussion; it is not a process of distortion, exaggeration, false scenarios or misrepresentation. Clearly, you do not apprehend the definition of a straw man argument.

        Please refer to the second sentence of your comments of October 19, 10:16 AM. In this statement you agree that Petco is a pitcher friendly ball park. That is your argument, and it is the argument that I’ve been addressing all along.

        It is time for you to stop playing these silly, childish games and act like a man, concede the point and get on with your life.

      • Alex K - Oct 20, 2012 at 10:28 PM

        I’m not going to concede anything, but this will be my last response.

        The analogy that would be more appropriate in this situation is…It is hard to find good pitching. It is easier to find good pitching in a pitcher friendly ballpark. That is my entire point. I’m simply stating that the difficult task of finding quality pitching is less difficult when Petco is your home ballpark. So it’s not an easy/easier situation it is a difficult/less difficult situation. I never once stated that it is an easy task to find quality pitching in Petco – You did. That is where the straw man questions come from – your distortion of my argument.

        This was fun. You’re obviously a very smart and well spoken person who I look forward to hearing from in the future.

      • daviddmsvcp - Oct 20, 2012 at 10:30 PM

        Protius talk good.

      • daviddmsvcp - Oct 20, 2012 at 10:32 PM

        Hey protius, have you been studying the Howard Cosell mthod for how to win friends and influence people?

      • protius - Oct 20, 2012 at 11:39 PM

        Alex K.:

        You wrote: “Petco is very pitcher friendly which means that the Padres can more easily find a pitcher that can succeed there (Alex K.: October 19, 10:16 AM).” You also wrote: “I never once stated that it is an easy task to find quality pitching in Petco – You did (Alex K.: October 20, 10:28 PM)” Can you see the dilemma that you’re proposing?

        Sentence 1 clearly states that Petco Park is pitcher friendly, and that the Padres can more easily find a pitcher that can succeed there. In sentence 1 you imply that pitchers can succeed there; therefore, it is not unreasonable to believe that a successful pitcher is also a quality pitcher.

        Sentence 2 is an attempt to negate sentence 1. Sentence 1 proves that you did indeed state that it is easy/easier to find quality pitching in Petco. The problem is you are saying one thing, and then you are denying that you said it. What you seem to be forgetting is that everything you wrote is still available for me to search through and cite.

        Alex, at 10:16 AM Friday morning to said it was easier to find a pitcher to succeed in Petco Park, and today, at 10:28 PM you are denying that you said it.

        Alex, there is no distortion of your argument. I thought I made that clear to you when I defined, by the book, a straw man argument, i.e., the imposition of false scenarios, or distortions, exaggerations or misrepresentations on your arguments. I have done none of these things. Asking questions and setting conditions is an a posteriori process of proving arguments, and is absolutely legitimate.

        Up to this point I enjoyed our exchange of ideas, but now it is getting a little tedious, because I find myself repeating the same simple concepts to you, which you either don’t want to accept, don’t understand or fail to address.

        I don’t have the need to embarrass anyone, so maybe your idea of not responding any further is a good one. I’ll just assume that you have conceded the point.

      • protius - Oct 20, 2012 at 11:51 PM

        Daviddmsvcp:

        I hear some good ole’ boys playing Dueling Banjos in the background, and your sister’s got that funny little twinkle in her eye when she looks at you, so why don’t you two kids just walk on over to the barn and do some sparkin’. Maybe she’ll take her teeth out for ya this time.

      • daviddmsvcp - Oct 21, 2012 at 1:34 AM

        Well, I do like bluegrass music. How ’bout you?

        But you’re off by just a little. It ain’t my sister, ya big silly, it’s my mom!!

        Now let’s see you find the logical inconsistancy in that!

        Hey, you got any Johnny Hats? I don’t want to get my mother pregnant, again. She’s only 12 years older than me.

      • protius - Oct 21, 2012 at 10:55 AM

        daviddmsvcp:

        You’re a good sport, with thick skin and an excellent sense of humor.

        I’ll have a better understanding of your humor the next time.

        Johnny hats………..I never heard that one before.

      • daviddmsvcp - Oct 21, 2012 at 12:11 PM

        oh geez, my bad, it’s Jimmy hats, not Johnny hat.

        Hey, while we’re chatting so nicely, how come you act like such a SOB? Being disrespectful and trying so hard to win. You know, it’s not like any of this shit is important.

      • protius - Oct 21, 2012 at 3:10 PM

        Daviddmsvcp:

        Correction noted.

        I’m not a disrespectful SOB. If I didn’t respect the people who responded to my comments, then I wouldn’t respond to them. I would just sit on my high horse and look down my nose at them like they were servants. You respond to me, you deserve a response from me.

        I defend myself and my team in the same manner that I, and/or my team is attacked. In other words: I treat kind with kind. You broke my balls a little bit; I broke your balls a little in return. I recognized that you had a sense of humor, and now, apparently you realize that so do I. Isn’t that the way it works in your neighborhood?

        As far as trying to win is concerned. During the course of discussion or debate, one has an argument or arguments that they propose and are obligated to defend. Think about it for a minute. If people went around saying things that they don’t care about, or don’t mean, then we’d never have an exchange of useful ideas. Everything would be fluffy subjective opinions that nobody could put any faith in. Therefore, the idea of winning is not as important as making sure that your arguments are not misrepresented, distorted or exaggerated; that they are able to pass a truth test that will sustain their validity.

        People have to know that someone is interested enough in this shit to argue if it is true and accurate or not. Whether or not the readers care is up to them, and is of no importance to me. I do what I do, because it matters to me, and to other like-minded people.

      • daviddmsvcp - Oct 21, 2012 at 5:16 PM

        “I’m not a disrespectful SOB.”

        Well, have a look at your comments in “Oct 19, 2012 at 3:05 PM” . And, don’t stop at the first time you wince. Read it all the way through.

        “I would just sit on my high horse and look down my nose at them like they were servants.”

        Exactly! Hmm, high intellect and bad attitude, are you a comic book villan??
        :-)

      • protius - Oct 21, 2012 at 6:47 PM

        daviddmscvp:

        Sorry dude, but you’ve had your 15 minutes, and you wasted it. I think I’ll make an exception for you and mount-up.

        Enjoy the silence.

      • daviddmsvcp - Oct 21, 2012 at 8:50 PM

        OK, but just remember one thing…it’s nice to be important, but it’s important to be nice.

      • Alex K - Oct 22, 2012 at 9:11 AM

        Foe emphasis: I’m not conceding anything. It’s just clear that you are going to ignore my actual argument and substitute your own.

        And, yes, I am the one that should be embarrassed by this exchange. (Read again with heavy sarcasm)

      • pjmarn6 - Oct 23, 2012 at 10:44 PM

        And what are the Yankees going to get for Rodriguez and how much of his salary are they going to half to eat? The Steinbrenner brothers by signing Rodriguez through his 42th birthday at $30,000,000 a year certainly aren’t smart enough to know what the hell to do with him and just might sign someone worse to an equally stupid contract. Therefore it is better to get rid of him straight up. You actually think any team is going to give up anyone of value for a player who has demonstrated that he can’t hit in the clutch, used steroids to get a fat contract and isn’t worth a damn?

    • pjmarn6 - Oct 19, 2012 at 11:35 PM

      Derek Jeter, Robinson Cano, and Mark Teixeira are not getting 1/6 of the total Yankee salary payments and are not getting $30,000,000 a year. On average Jeter, Cano and Teixeira each get $13,000,000.

      Far and away Mr. October should have been Rodriguez.

      And if you can’t recognize a facetious statement then……………learn to interpret.

      • protius - Oct 20, 2012 at 3:03 AM

        Derek Jeter earns $16, 000,000 per annum. Robinson Cano earns $14, 000,000. Mark Teixeira earns $22,500,000. On average Jeter, Cano and Teixeira each get $17,500,000. Add, then divide by three.

        Mr. October was Reggie Jackson. Mr. November is Derek Jeter. Mr. May is Dave Winfield. The titles are not transferable.

        Is there anything else I can help you with? he said facetiously.

      • pjmarn6 - Oct 23, 2012 at 10:52 PM

        Protius I meant Granderson instead of Teixeira, but anyway you cut it Rodriguez got 1/6 of the salary and didn’t even contribute 1/6 to the playoffs. And of course he should have been Mr. October for the Yankees this year. FYI Reggie Jackson didn’t play for the Yankees this year. I remember the photo op that Rodriguez did with Warren Buffet, probably discussing where to invest Rodriguez millions.

        Most likely that is where Rodriguez head was this year in his stock profolio and on the telephone with Buffet.

  2. youngyankee - Oct 19, 2012 at 1:26 AM

    agree. if the yanks have to eat up most of his 114 million AND have to both give up prospects and pay the salary of another 3rd baseman, the yanks don’t benefit from it

    even if he hits 270 15-20 hrs and 70-80 rbi, it would be shrewd to keep him.

    • 18thstreet - Oct 19, 2012 at 8:57 AM

      I basically agree, but I don’t think shrewd is the word to describe it: it’s just the best option of a few bad ones.

      • youngyankee - Oct 19, 2012 at 12:25 PM

        haha agree. we should def replace shrewd with ah-shit-we-made-a-300million$-bed-and-now-we-gotta-sleep-in-it

  3. vallewho - Oct 19, 2012 at 1:27 AM

    it’s been a stupid proposition from the first time it was mentioned in the past two weeks…

  4. hockeyflow33 - Oct 19, 2012 at 1:56 AM

    This is beyond stupid. Who would trade for him? I can’t believe some pays you to not only write this drivel, but make it up as well.

    • mazblast - Oct 19, 2012 at 1:59 AM

      There are 29 other general managers, and it only takes one gullible one to do it.

      • evanpenn - Oct 19, 2012 at 7:07 AM

        Maz, you’ve missed the point. There are plenty of teams that would trade for Arod…because the Yankees would have to eat most of his salary to get a deal done. The problem is on the Yankees end. If, on the other hand, you’re saying that the Yankees can find a team that will take on any more than a fraction of Arod’s contract, well that’s a fantasy.

    • cur68 - Oct 19, 2012 at 2:17 AM

      Someone traded for Vernon Wells. Remember him? Vernon “Turf Toe” Wells and his albatross contract. Someone will take a chance on ARod, you better believe it.

      • e5again - Oct 19, 2012 at 10:26 AM

        But Vernon Wells is signed through his age 35 season, not 42.

      • mazblast - Oct 19, 2012 at 10:45 AM

        And that GM is gone. I don’t doubt that the Wells trade was one strike against him.

    • albertmn - Oct 19, 2012 at 5:02 PM

      If the Yankees were to eat enough of the contract, so that another team was left paying him $5-7 million a year, someone would take that gamble. But, as noted, it doesn’t make sense for even the Yankees to eat that much contract, at least not without an improvement lined up.

  5. mungman69 - Oct 19, 2012 at 2:07 AM

    Fire the team.

  6. brewcrewchamps - Oct 19, 2012 at 2:48 AM

    “That said, his defense at third isn’t bad and he’s never not been an above average hitter.”

    I definitely consider myself to be among the people who don’t like a-rod. Never have, never will…but I mean…come on.

    • protius - Oct 19, 2012 at 8:16 AM

      What’s your point?

  7. sdelmonte - Oct 19, 2012 at 5:18 AM

    I think that at this point, NY is just a bad place for A-Rod to be. He should ask to be traded so he can start over fresh. This isn’t about his skills, but about his focus. Here he will not have much.

    • protius - Oct 19, 2012 at 8:14 AM

      Why is New York a bad place for A-Rod at this point?

      • sdelmonte - Oct 19, 2012 at 1:38 PM

        I think it’s never been a great fit. Not sure why some “divas” make it here and others don’t, but from the start A-Rod has always struck me as trying to convince himself he should be here without believing.

        After the past two weeks, I can’t see him ever being able to focus on the game in NYC. Though I am not sure he will be allowed to just play anywhere.

      • protius - Oct 19, 2012 at 4:18 PM

        Delmonte:

        Excellent insight. Thank you for sharing it with me.

    • youngyankee - Oct 19, 2012 at 12:22 PM

      considering that other post in here regarding some Yankees were “spooked” by the boos, I’d say throughout the years Alex has always been accountable in saying “I gotta do better Sothey don’t boo”

      everyone has counted him out, the same ppl that counted Jeter out after that 1 bad year. let’s be real though Alex is not the 315/40/120 guy anymore but when he’s hitting, he protects Cano and tex at the plate.

      before his first injury this year (can’t remember) he was in a good groove. before his broken hand he was in a good groove too.

      if he stays healthy he absolutely can produce in the heart of lineup and can handle new York pressure.

      so long as Jeter pats him on the back here and there, cuz we all know that’s the one opinion Alex really cares about

      • protius - Oct 20, 2012 at 3:08 AM

        What’s a Sothey?

  8. sincitybonobo - Oct 19, 2012 at 6:21 AM

    Signing ARod to his current deal after the 2007 season was malpractice. This suggestion is not a second guess- the deal was rightly panned at the time. The Yankees were basically bidding against themselves after he opted out of the original deal signed with Texas after year 7.

    In addition to the $114 million, Rodriguez is due garunteed “performance bonuses” for passing Mays, Aaron, Ruth, and Bonds on the all-time Home Run list. ($6 mil per for tying each of the first three and $6 mil for tying, and $6 mil for passing Bonds.) This could escalate the garunteed money to $144 million. Would Yankee fans really celebrate ARod passing Ruth on the HR list?

    The Yankees shouldn’t dismiss the thought of unloading him- although they have absolutely no leverage in this deal. Whether he stays or goes, the Yankees will not come close to getting their money’s worth. His bat speed has declined so badly, that he is guessing on fastballs by starting his swing way too early.

    If he does become the HR King, it will be every bit the joyless pursuit that we witnessed from Bonds in 2007. The incentive money will be a huge negative story. Can he, or anyone, justify a steroid cheat stealing money by knocking these legends down a peg on the all time HR list? This will be a spectacle the Yankees will not- or should not- envy.

    All it takes is one GM to make an offer that is slightly less terrible than the looming disaster slated to unfold in The Bronx. The financial mistake was made five years ago. Consider it a sunk cost- albeit a very expensive one.

    Of course, all of this trade talk is null and void if he doesn’t agree to waive the full no-trade clause he was granted. A mess for the Yankees, indeed- but not one that was unforseeable or unavoidable.

  9. darthicarus - Oct 19, 2012 at 7:06 AM

    Tigers punch their tickets to the World Series, the Cardinals are beating down the Giants, and yet there are 4 stories on the front page of HBT about ARod still. I’m beyond sick of him now.

  10. muir6 - Oct 19, 2012 at 7:14 AM

    Another A Rod apologist, he is done body and mind shot. Pay him to go away or lose your fan base even more.

    • djeter220 - Oct 19, 2012 at 7:58 AM

      Even more? Please. I’ll take his .275 25HR and 80 RBI as a 38 year old on the decline and continue to apologize with the other fans who can separate our support of the team from our hate hard-on for a player.

  11. mrznyc - Oct 19, 2012 at 8:00 AM

    The ARod Yankees could not sell out the stadium for post season games – That has to tell you something about ARod and the team, and it’s only going to get worse. There’s no passion on the team or for the team. Something has to change

    • 18thstreet - Oct 19, 2012 at 9:32 AM

      Maybe the tickets cost too much.

  12. rrrii - Oct 19, 2012 at 8:09 AM

    Matthew – could be the perfect time to move Jeter to 3rd, no?

    • sabathiawouldbegoodattheeighthtoo - Oct 19, 2012 at 8:29 AM

      Or second. Let’s face it, if the Yankees actually want to get something back, Cano is the guy to trade. Maybe a team like the Giants would make a deal for some pitching…

  13. protius - Oct 19, 2012 at 8:11 AM

    mrzync:

    You wrote: “The ARod Yankees could not sell out the stadium for post season games – That has to tell you something about ARod and the team.” OK, what does it tell us about A-Rod and the Yankees?

    You wrote: “There’s no passion on the team or for the team.” Is that so? Please elaborate.

    • heyblueyoustink - Oct 19, 2012 at 8:41 AM

      It tells you that maybe the fan base believes the Yankees, compared to their peers, are too flawed to win a World Series Championship, year, after year, after year. Not making the playoffs, or making a Championship appearance, but winning the whole thing.

      Maybe they’re flawed, and maybe there are many in the fan base who see A-Rod as one of the flaws. I heard someone compare him to T.O.: Ok to have on your team until he becomes a liability in some way.

      • protius - Oct 19, 2012 at 10:14 AM

        Stinky:

        You wrote: “It tells you that maybe the fan base believes the Yankees, compared to their peers, are too flawed to win a World Series Championship, year, after year, after year.” It doesn’t tell me any such thing.

        I saw one post season out of the last 17 post seasons where Yankee Stadium had a lot of empty seats.

        This year, it seems, the press took great pleasure in focusing on empty seats at Yankee Stadium. Keep in mind that it’s Ted Turner’s press that was doing the focusing. No possibility of an agenda there, of course.

        You don’t make very convincing arguments; in fact you begin your arguments with speculation, and you continue to support your claims with a lot of maybe this and maybe thats.

        Speculation that depends on more speculation to affirm its validity is a futile exercise in circular thinking, and does nothing to clarify mrzync’s original statement: “The ARod Yankees could not sell out the stadium for post season games – That has to tell you something about ARod and the team.”

        I appreciate your effort for trying to answer my question on mrzync’s behalf, but I’d be interested to see if he can defend his own arguments.

  14. paperlions - Oct 19, 2012 at 8:12 AM

    The problem with trading for ARod, for many teams, is the circus and reputation that comes with it. Even if he tries to fade into the background…let’s be realistic, the media won’t let him. It won’t matter if he is playing well, playing poorly, behaving himself or not….in just about any market there will be a couple writers and/or talk radio guys that will constantly bring up ARod-related baseless narratives…they don’t seem to be able to help themselves….and there doesn’t appear to be anything ARod can do about it.

    It is like WADA’s fascination with Armstrong. If they spent as much time investigating every rider as they did Armstrong, they’d probably find that there wasn’t a single clean rider in the top 50 of the Tours that Lance won….but they don’t care about those guys….just Lance.

  15. rockthered1286 - Oct 19, 2012 at 8:16 AM

    Yanks fans are going to hate this but the 2012 Yanks and O’s have fairly identical situations to deal with. 2 teams with hot bats all season long, great pitching, and both hit a wall in the playoffs. Both teams have a few areas worth upgrading, no question, BUT the bigger question is whether the upgrades will be available in FA? For the Yanks, is there really a better 3B option out there? Is it really worth the risk of losing a slightly above avg 3B and gamble on another? Or eating his salary? Just like the O’s are dealing with a similar situation in LF and 1B (McLouth and Reynolds, respectively).

    Personally, I pin the majority of A-Rod’s issue on one man only: Girardi. I’ve said all year that he’s a good manager but surely not a great one. Hell, every O’s/Yanks game, win or lose, I walked away saying Buck 100% out-managed Joe. And honestly, the only reason Joe is revered as a god manager to me is because of the payroll/team around him. In my opinion, Girardi has no control over his players. As much as it hurts me to say, Jeter is the real leader of his team AND the bench. Girardi is a puppet. A placeholder. He’s done nothing to impress and has made many counter-productive moves in-game this year. When A-Rod started slumping (along with the others) I think Girardi needs to get in their heads and tell them ‘you’re better than this’ and get them focused and game ready. When this whole debacle with the hottie Aussie chick in the stands happened? That’s when Girardi needs to pull his ass aside and tell him ‘cut the crap and do your job.’ He simply has no control and that results in no respect.

    If the Yanks want to make a big move this offseason? I think it may be time for Joe to go.

    • sabathiawouldbegoodattheeighthtoo - Oct 19, 2012 at 8:33 AM

      I think Bobby V just proved that it is not so easy to manage an expensive roster full of superstars. There are particular issues a team like the Yankees (or Red Sox) has, and it is more than just baseball decisions.

      Frankly, the biggest problem with ARod is the press. ARod was not the worst guy on this team in the playoffs, not even second-worst, but he drew all the media attention. They don’t go after Cano and Granderson, or Martin, or Chavez. It is the giant media hard-on for Alex that makes Alex seem like a bigger deal.

      • mazblast - Oct 19, 2012 at 10:52 AM

        There are million$ of rea$on$ why the media is fixated on Rodriguez. $ome have to do with hi$ $alary, while others are related to his narcissism and his fixation on what people think of him.

    • Alex K - Oct 19, 2012 at 9:12 AM

      Time out. Did you just compare the O’s situation with McLouth and Reynolds to what the Yankees have to decide with A-Rod? The only above average thing either of those guys do is Reynolds power. There is nothing that is the same about these two situations.

      • rockthered1286 - Oct 19, 2012 at 11:23 AM

        You’re thinking too narrow minded here. I’m talking in terms of replacement. A-Rod is not wanted in NY. That’s pretty apparent. So you look at FA and see who is out there and it’s a pretty shallow talent pool at 3B. So the question is: is it worth trading away A-Rod when there’s nobody better to fill the spot? The same question is being addressed in Baltimore, particularly with Reynolds. Reynolds played tremendous defense at 1B after the move. There’s no question there. His bat got hot, but his K’s are still up. He’s due a HUGE chunk of change this season. So the question remains, do we pay him or do we look for a replacement? Problem is, Reynolds is not worth his arb #, but there are no better options out there in FA. McLouth is a similar siutation to a lesser extent, but that issue is more of a McLouth v. LJ Hoes or Xavier Avery. Nate was a fantastic lead off hitter (see ALDS) and really revived his career, but how long do the O’s leave Hoes and Avery in the minors? RF and CF are locked up long term. Throw Reimold back into the mix and you’re looking at 4 guys fighting for 1 spot. So who do you let go?

        I guess McLouth is not the best example, but in terms of alternate options, A-Rod and Reynolds are in the same category. Personally, I say both teams keep their respective players.

      • Alex K - Oct 19, 2012 at 12:05 PM

        I disagree that either Reynolds or McLouth are anywhere close to good enough to worry about who can replace them. Both of those guys are pretty much the definition of replacement level player.

      • protius - Oct 19, 2012 at 1:06 PM

        Alex K.:

        I don’t know what team you were watching, but without McLouth and Reynolds’ contributions this season, the O’s were going nowhere.

        Red made some very good points that you seemed disinterested in addressing, but that’s your choice.

      • Alex K - Oct 19, 2012 at 2:26 PM

        You see, Protius, I did address everyone of his points with one argument. Neither of those players is very good. They are pretty much replacement level players. After that there is nothing else to argue.

      • protius - Oct 19, 2012 at 4:21 PM

        Alex K.:

        Sorry, no.

      • Alex K - Oct 19, 2012 at 4:58 PM

        No what? The players in question can be replaced adequately by any number of minor league player. So why should the O’s worry about who they are going to use to replace them. With that as my base point the rest of what he says doesn’t matter.

        Reynolds:

        fWAR – 0.5
        rWAR – -0.1

        McLouth:
        fWAR – 0.8
        rWAR – 0.8

      • protius - Oct 19, 2012 at 8:03 PM

        Alex K.:

        To begin, you wrote: “The players in question can be replaced adequately by any number of minor league player.” There is no guarantee that minor league players will perform any better or any worse than McLouth and Reynolds; therefore, your point is moot. If a moot point is your base, then your base point is flawed.

        Next, the statistical support for this argument is unreliable, and is therefore worthless. The war statistic is a non-standardized sabermetric value. Currently, there is no universally established formula that is used to calculate WAR. Baseball Prospectus, Baseball Reference and Fangraph all calculate this statistic in different ways.

        Sorry, but an argument based on an unreliable foundation has no value.

      • Alex K - Oct 22, 2012 at 9:36 AM

        Just saw this….

        There is no guarantee that any player will perform better or worse than McLouth or Reynolds…what exactly is your point there? The O’s could trade for Joey Votto and Ryan Braun and they could play worse than Reynolds and McLouth. That’s highly unlikely, but possible. Nothing is guaranteed.

        So just because a stat is non-standardized it’s worthless? Good to know. It’s not like there is some secret to how each is calculated. They aren’t gospel by any means, but they are very helpful. In this case they all agree, too.

        Reynolds
        WARP (BP version) – -1 (yes, that is negative)
        fWAR – 0.5
        rWAR – -0.1 (also negative)

        McLouth
        WARP (BP version) – 0.9 (This is for only his time in Baltimore. Full season is 0.2)
        fWAR – 0.8
        rWAR – 0.8

        I think it’s a pretty telling story when all three (I never use WARP, but included it just for you on his post) say the same thing. These guys are replacement level players that can easily be replaced. And just so we’re clear I actually mean easy, a simple task, this time. I’ve got three transparent, respected, and independent sources for my argument, what about you?

      • protius - Oct 24, 2012 at 12:40 AM

        Alex K.:

        Sorry Alex, but I don’t have the patience to teach you how to conduct a text focused discussion.

        You’re all over the place, and you have this strange idea that you can introduce new support into your arguments when ever you please. I don’t know what kind of schools you went to, but it just isn’t done that way in the real world, and I don’t want to waste my time making good arguments with someone who is either unwilling or unable to acknowledge them.

        I have sufficiently explained why your arguments are irrelevant, and have proved that your statistical support is unreliable to such an extent that an unbiased judge would rule in my favor.

        Your counterarguments are inconsequential, and baseless. So if you don’t mind, I’ll pass from now on.

      • Alex K - Oct 24, 2012 at 9:00 AM

        My argument: Reynolds and McLouth are replacement level players that the O’s should not worry about how to replace because any number of minor league players could provide just as much value as they did.

        Your argument: You can’t guarantee that a minor league player will preform any better, so you’re point is moot.

        My counter to that: You can’t guarantee any player will play better than those two players, no matter how talented.

        Your counter to me: You’re dumb.

        Does that about cover how that went?

        As for WAR, it is not standardized, true. That, however, does not make it invalid. I used every version and they all said the same thing. That means something. I didn’t even need WAR to tell me that those guys are not very good major league baseball players. Watching them play baseball told me that. I used WAR because it is an objective way to express what I think already.

        You never made an argument as to why Reynolds and McLouth are more than replacement level player, either. If you don’t agree you have to provide some type of reason as to why your argument is more valid than mine.

        I’ll take your silence to mean that you concede all the points I just made.

    • protius - Oct 19, 2012 at 1:00 PM

      Red:

      You are a whirlwind of confused thoughts and contradictions.

      You claim that Girardi is a good manager, because of the payroll that supports the team around him, however, that team just got swept in the ALCS. Apparently, good management and the size of the payroll could not produce a pennant. How do you account for that?

      You claim that: “Girardi has no control over his players”, but you don’t offer any arguments to support your claim. If you feel that this approach provides a solid foundation for reasonable debate, then it’s fair play for me to copy your style and say: You don’t know what you’re talking about.

      You wrote: “Girardi is a puppet. A placeholder. He’s done nothing to impress and has made many counter-productive moves in-game this year.” How do you reconcile this statement with your notion that “he’s a good manager but surely not a great one.” Can we assume that it’s your opinion that good managers make counterproductive, in game moves during the season, and that great managers don’t do these things? And please tell the readers how you know for a fact that Joe Girardi didn’t tell Al to “‘cut the crap and do your job?’” Sorry, but this is just guesswork on your part.

      The rest of your rant is just mindless conjecture, without a shred of evidence or strong argumentation to lend it any common sense or credibility.

      If it is indeed time for Joe to go; you have got to make a better case for your credibility than just your own subjective opinion, and circular thinking.

      • dgmorris1963 - Oct 20, 2012 at 7:58 AM

        Can we say Cuckoo for CoCo puffs? Bro, you might want to think of increasing the dosage of your meds.

      • protius - Oct 20, 2012 at 6:53 PM

        Morris:

        Can we say slobbering Tourette outburst from an Internet imbecile? And you’re not my brother. All my siblings are humans and walk up-right.

        Cheetah want a banana?

      • dgmorris1963 - Oct 22, 2012 at 2:20 PM

        Protius:

        Man you have some thin skin. Anyone who spends as much time commenting on this nonsense is a pathetic loser. Just like most Yankee fans.

  16. stex52 - Oct 19, 2012 at 8:43 AM

    Just common sense. Play him until you have a better option. Then eat the contract. It’s hard to see him pushing Bonds right now, unless that broken hand is really holding him back more than we think. 2007 management didn’t have the courage to let him really try to get a better deal. It paid off in 2009, but the overall cost is absolutely too high. But it doesn’t help to sit around kicking yourself. Cashman will figure out when the opportunity cost is too high, but it isn’t yet.

    • protius - Oct 20, 2012 at 3:19 AM

      You wrote: “Cashman will figure out when the opportunity cost is too high.” Please define the term “opportunity cost.”

      According to you, if Cashman will figure out when the opportunity cost is too high, then shouldn’t you leave it to Cashman, a professional, to determine if it already is too high; as opposed to you, a fan, claiming that it isn’t?

  17. pisano - Oct 19, 2012 at 8:53 AM

    Anytime is a good time to free yourself of Arod, he’s finished. He can’t catch up to the fastball anymore, his bat speed is gone and it’s not from the wrist, it’s from his age. Some players just age faster than others and he’s one of the one”s that have aged, it maybe from steroid use or just natural, but if the Yankees can dump him on another team they should. He’ll have a rough time with the fans in N.Y. next year, if he’s smart he’ll ask to be moved.

  18. cackalackyank - Oct 19, 2012 at 9:56 AM

    At the rate A-rod is going I don’t think he will pass Bonds, and I am starting to question whether he passes Ruth and Aaron either.

  19. Old Gator - Oct 19, 2012 at 10:02 AM

    The Chihuahua came on spawrts tawrk raydeeo yesterday and swore up and down the wavelength that there have been absolutely no discussions between the Feesh and the Borg about A-Roid and/or Heath Bell.

    And you can believe him, because he never lies and he’s always right.

    • protius - Oct 20, 2012 at 3:27 AM

      El borracho nos cuenta una historia sobre Rodríguez. Él habla como si él fuera un hombre mejor que él, pero Rodríguez no es un borracho se caiga.

      • pjmarn6 - Oct 25, 2012 at 10:26 AM

        protius is getting tired of getting all the negative votes for his English blabbering and is now trying out his Spanish babbering. Still getting a lot of negative votes.

  20. j0esixpack - Oct 19, 2012 at 10:46 AM

    I’m a Red Sox fan, but trading A-Rod is a joke – though you have to expect such talk when a healthy player with 5 years and $125 million remaining on his contract was an inch away from being left off the playoff roster.

    First of all, unless they give away half their farm system to sweeten the deal, no team is going to want a 40 year old mediocre player making $25 million a year.

    Everyone knew the Yankees GROSSLY overpaid him on his 10 year contract, but that’s kindof become the reality in baseball and it’s what the Yankees needed to do to retain him for what even they probably thought would be five more productive years.

    But overall Baseball is a game of averages – and not even the biggest Yankee-hater thinks that A-Rod is going to remain in this deep a slump. There’s highs and lows for all players and A-Rod hit his low when the team needed him the most.

    It’s unfortunate if you’re a Yankees fan but it happens.

    • mazblast - Oct 19, 2012 at 11:00 AM

      While reading that comment, this immediately came to mind–

      Judge Chamberlain Haller: Mr. Gambini?
      Vinny Gambini: Yes, sir?
      Judge Chamberlain Haller: That is a lucid, intelligent, well thought-out objection.
      Vinny Gambini: Thank you, Your Honor.
      Judge Chamberlain Haller: [firm tone] Overruled.

  21. isujames - Oct 19, 2012 at 11:08 AM

    all of the aforementioned maybe true, though he still scores a lot.

  22. throughthewickets - Oct 19, 2012 at 11:23 AM

    This is why each of us should all be thankful that Tom Hicks isn’t part of your favorite team’s ownership group.

  23. tomtravis76 - Oct 19, 2012 at 11:33 AM

    MLB only tests for HGH during spring training and Post season…the yankees bats went cold in the post season.

    • Alex K - Oct 19, 2012 at 11:49 AM

      How, exactly, would HGH help?

  24. crali - Oct 19, 2012 at 3:56 PM

    The only way Alex leaves the Yanks is if he wants to – regardless of what he said about loving the organization, NY, etc. Not only is his contract huge but he’s a 5 & 10 guy w/a no-trade clause so unless he wants to be traded or the Yankees are ready to cut him and eat all that money he’s not going anywhere. He wound up looking/sounding a lot better than the organization did.
    Forget the ball to the girl in the stands thing – who hasn’t seen that before? Maybe the timing wasn’t perfect but we don’t know the exact timing do we? What we know is the organization leaked that to the Post (feeling like old times) to try and embarrass him even more.
    It’s doubtful that Eric Chavez returns – I think he’ll retire. Playing him so much recently was clearly too much for him, he got 0 hits, did not play well at 3rd (which surprised me) and I believe if was too much pressure on him trying to replace a healthy A-Rod. In fact, though I think the Tigers were the better team I believe the team would have played better without the A-Rod distraction. I think it was the worst thing they could have done once Jeter went down and totally created unnecessary unease in the locker room. Before the playoffs began when CC was asked which was the biggest injury on the team – he said, A-Rod, Cash (of course) said Mo. That is just a window into how the players felt about not having A-Rod around.
    Just like they did to Jorge last year (and many other Yankees) because they were angry w/him due to his contract – and Jeter re his contract negotiations (that they leaked) they decided to shame Alex at the worst possible time. Bad timing, bad actions, bad management (really? Cashman makes out the lineup). They offered those contracts – it’s not the players faults that they took them.

  25. jprcox - Oct 19, 2012 at 6:01 PM

    This is where the Yankees could play “chicken”. They could tell ARod he will sit until they allows a trade. ARod will not give up his career for money – he has the money already (enough for many lifetimes), and he is wanting to prove something.

    The problem is that I agree with what others have said in the past – how much of his success was based upon his drug use?

    Yankees MUST get rid of ARod – he is a distraction and many players are mad he makes what he does and they play way better.

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

Cubs shore up rotation with Jon Lester
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. J. Kang (2756)
  2. W. Myers (2509)
  3. D. Ross (2150)
  4. C. McGehee (2110)
  5. W. Middlebrooks (1957)
  1. J. Shields (1855)
  2. T. Tulowitzki (1835)
  3. D. Haren (1825)
  4. J. Upton (1822)
  5. M. Scutaro (1757)