• The Sergio & Buddy Show 2011

    Posted by on December 17th, 2010 · Comments (39)

    So, this is what it has come down to, in Yankeeland, eh?

    What’s “this” you want to know?

    You know…speculation about the Yankees looking at acquiring starting pitchers such as Wandy Rodriguez, Freddy Garcia, Gil Meche, Ben Sheets, Kevin Millwood, et al.

    Yeah, that’s what happens when you need two starting pitchers for your rotation…this late in the game.

    Of course, getting Andy Pettitte to return for another season would be a huge plus here. But, what are the odds of that happening now?

    Therefore, this is why I find myself thinking about Darrell Rasner, Sidney Ponson, Shawn Chacon, Aaron Small, Dustin Moseley, Cory Lidle, Kei Igawa, Chad Gaudin, Esteban Loaiza, Tanyon Sturtze and Dan Giese today – and wondering what reject/retread Brian Cashman is going to use to fill in his rotation this season. And, you know he’s going to do it – as he’s stated in the past that your fourth and fifth starters can always be addressed in-season, if needed. (Remember when he said that the plans to go with Hughes and Kennedy in 2008 were low risk because they were just the back-end of the rotation?) Then again, they already have Sergio Mitre and Buddy Carlyle signed to contracts for this coming season…so…maybe that’s Cashman’s answer already?

    Oh, that’s just wonderful…

    Comments on The Sergio & Buddy Show 2011

    1. UNC Tarheel
      December 17th, 2010 | 8:49 am

      Best I remember….Chacon, Small, and Lidle all played pretty well for the Yanks. I also seem to remember that the Yankees have won 5 World Series in the past 15 years….not bad by any standard. Quit whining about Cashman.

    2. December 17th, 2010 | 8:52 am

      Don’t forget Mark Prior!

    3. December 17th, 2010 | 9:08 am

      UNC Tarheel wrote:

      I also seem to remember that the Yankees have won 5 World Series in the past 15 years…

      But, just one in the last ten years. And, that may have been “Dr. G” assisted.

    4. UNC Tarheel
      December 17th, 2010 | 9:16 am

      @ Steve Lombardi:

      Or, you could say one in the last two years. Come on, man. And don’t start on the Arod deal again…..he had a great playoff run, who cares how it happened.

    5. MJ Recanati
      December 17th, 2010 | 9:54 am

      Steve Lombardi wrote:

      But, just one in the last ten years. And, that may have been “Dr. G” assisted.

      http://tinyurl.com/2wuncm4

    6. Raf
      December 17th, 2010 | 10:03 am

      Steve Lombardi wrote:

      But, just one in the last ten years. And, that may have been “Dr. G” assisted.

      So? Are series wins discounted because of PED use? Then you may as well discount every WS win since, what, the 50′s? 60′s?

      At any rate, Cashman’s right; rotation matters (back end or otherwise) can be addressed in season. And again, it’s not “late in the game.” You, and others who are pushing the panic button make it seem like there has never been a pitcher moved/signed in January, February, spring training, or the regular season.

    7. BOHAN
      December 17th, 2010 | 10:34 am

      Only seems “late in the game” because there was only one “big fish in the sea” this off season. these guy might be pretty good 4th or 5th starters I think. There’s really no one out there to get except Greinke right now. I think the way this team is right now will be able to at least compete and stay in the race til around the trade deadline. Then as teams start to fall out and start putting bigger names on the market then they can go and snatch one up, just like Texas did with Lee and Philly did with Oswalt. No need to panic just yet, let’s wait til we play some real baseball before we do that.

    8. December 17th, 2010 | 11:15 am

      Raf wrote:

      .
      So? Are series wins discounted because of PED use? Then you may as well discount every WS win since, what, the 50′s? 60′s?

      No, the ones before there was a rule about this get a pass. And, the ones after 2003, if achieved by the use of PEDs, are tainted – because they clearly broke the rules.

      http://waswatching.com/2010/03/15/drawing-the-line-on-peds-cheating-tainted-records/

    9. Rich M
      December 17th, 2010 | 11:22 am

      @ Steve Lombardi:
      So what your saying is every world series from 2003 on are tainted.

    10. December 17th, 2010 | 11:41 am

      Rich M wrote:

      So what your saying is every world series from 2003 on are tainted.

      Heck, no.
      What I’m saying is: If a World Series ring was achieved after 2003 where the players most responsible for that team winning are later to be found out using banned PEDs, then THAT World Series ring is tainted.

    11. GDH
      December 17th, 2010 | 11:49 am

      Steve Lombardi wrote:

      If a World Series ring was achieved after 2003 where the players most responsible for that team winning are later to be found out using banned PEDs, then THAT World Series ring is tainted.

      From my point of view PED use is too complicated to work that way – It’s not just the WS winner who can affect the outcome. What if out of the 8 playoff teams, 2 have PED users who knock a team out in the first round and then don’t reach the series, or don’t win the WS. By the same token, a team may not make the playoffs because they got eliminated by a playoff team that had PED users. If we assume PED use was rampant (which it was) and users were on all teams (which they were) then I would have to support the all-or-none approach, which says either they are all tainted, or none were tainted.

    12. GDH
      December 17th, 2010 | 11:51 am

      As an aside, I would definitely allow that some may be clearly more tainted than others, like the 04 Red Sox, who conveniently had not one but 2 users hitting 3 & 4 in the most potent offense in baseball and carried them to a ring.

    13. GDH
      December 17th, 2010 | 11:55 am

      And back to the original thread, the “if the season started today” rotation is not the rotation, because the season starts in April, not in December. Therefore speculation that “Bubba Crosby will be our center fielder,” or “Sergio Mitre will be our fourth starter,” is just that speculation, and based on the Yankees history of fielding very competitive teams every year, it’s a pretty weak speculation at that.

    14. Raf
      December 17th, 2010 | 12:01 pm

      Steve Lombardi wrote:

      Raf wrote:
      .
      So? Are series wins discounted because of PED use? Then you may as well discount every WS win since, what, the 50′s? 60′s?
      No, the ones before there was a rule about this get a pass. And, the ones after 2003, if achieved by the use of PEDs, are tainted – because they clearly broke the rules.
      http://waswatching.com/2010/03/15/drawing-the-line-on-peds-cheating-tainted-records/

      If they clearly broke the rules, then where are the suspensions?

    15. Rich M
      December 17th, 2010 | 12:05 pm

      Steve Lombardi wrote:

      …But, just one in the last ten years. And, that may have been “Dr. G” assisted.

      Why single out ARod Steve? Andy Pettitte was a big part of that Championship. He was an admitted PED user.

    16. December 17th, 2010 | 12:17 pm

      @ Rich M: Andy Pettitte was pre-2004.

    17. December 17th, 2010 | 12:22 pm

      @ Steve Lombardi: So was A-Rod’s. Unless you have proof of anything past that, this is all conjecture.

      Funny thing is, I was actually going to agree with your point about Cashman — he gets way too much of a pass from fans — until this devolved into a steroids discussion.

    18. Raf
      December 17th, 2010 | 12:36 pm

      lisaswan wrote:

      Funny thing is, I was actually going to agree with your point about Cashman — he gets way too much of a pass from fans

      Of course gets too much of a pass from “fans.” They lap up whatever the media tells them. It’s what they do, it’s the nature of the beast.

      Having said that, Cashman nearly isn’t the terrible GM as portrayed on this site. If he were, it would be pretty easy to prove. Whether Steve and others want to believe it, the fact remains that if Cashman were such a dunce, the Yanks would not have been able to put together a run like they have.

    19. Evan3457
      December 17th, 2010 | 2:02 pm

      People can speculate all they want.

      It means nothing.

      And I wouldn’t mind Wandy Rodriguez right now; he’s been prettyn darn good the last 2-3 years.

      And again; let’s review the available candidates….
      The top candidate was Lee. Cashman made an offer. Lee decided he’d rather be with the Phillies.
      The next best candidate is Pavano. ‘Nuff said.
      The next best candidate was Garland. He didn’t want to leave southern California.

      The next best candidates are mediocrities. So much for free agents.

      The only ace available for trade has personal problems, and would probably “Whitson” in New York.

      And that’s it for effective, rational alternatives.
      So you start the season with what you have, hoping you can re-sign Pettitte and you wait. And you wait. And you wait.

      Because to do anything else at this point, unless some stupid team hands you a gift from God, is stoo-pid, whether Anti-Cashmanites care to admit it or not.

    20. mwach1
      December 17th, 2010 | 2:37 pm

      @ Raf:

      Over at River Ave. Blues, Mike Axisa had this to say on his live chat:

      “I think (Cashman) is a lot better than he gets credit for, some other sites (coughWWcough) just write off his moves as Steinbrenner money moves because they have an extremely transparent agenda. I don’t know where you got the idea that I’m not fond of Cash, it’s quite the opposite.”

      If this site were blatantly anti-Cashman and backed it up with logical rationale that would be one thing, but the author of this site will not back up some of his baseless arguments.

      I’ve been reading this site for years now and am considering jumping ship. It makes me a sad panda.

    21. December 17th, 2010 | 2:44 pm

      That guy at RAB is the same guy who tweets that he hasn’t read this site in months, yet, for some reason, he can’t stop talking about this site. What does that tell you?

    22. December 17th, 2010 | 2:49 pm

      @ mwach1: No one is forcing anyone to read this blog. If you don’t like what’s written here, then don’t read it. No one is holding a gun to anyone’s head forcing them to read it. Read it, if you want. Or, don’t read it, if you prefer. Either way, it’s the same to me.

      I don’t write this blog to try and make people happy. And, I don’t write it with the hope that what I write will make people want to read it. I write what I write because it’s what I what to write. Always been that way, always will.

      There are plenty of blogs out there willing to spoon feed the fanboys the pablum that they crave. But, this ain’t one of them.

    23. December 17th, 2010 | 2:52 pm

      lisaswan wrote:

      So was A-Rod’s. Unless you have proof of anything past that, this is all conjecture.

      At this point, agreed, 100% – that’s all it is. But, the beauty of the truth is that it cannot be destroyed. It can be hidden, at times. But, eventually, the truth always bubbles up to the surface. It’s just a matter of time on A-Rod’s 2009 post-season fuel. Look at the numbers. No one does what he did…except Bonds in 2002, and, we all know what was the power behind that now.

    24. Raf
      December 17th, 2010 | 2:56 pm

      mwach1 wrote:

      If this site were blatantly anti-Cashman and backed it up with logical rationale that would be one thing, but the author of this site will not back up some of his baseless arguments.

      His site, his rules, he can do whatever he wants. It’s up to him to back up his arguments, or not to respond to them at all. It’s his right, and honestly, we’re not entitled to a response.

      No matter his stance, it’s not like he’s stifling discussion.

    25. Raf
      December 17th, 2010 | 3:00 pm

      Steve Lombardi wrote:

      There are plenty of blogs out there willing to spoon feed the fanboys the pablum that they crave. But, this ain’t one of them.

      You guys have more in common than you think.

    26. mwach1
      December 17th, 2010 | 3:02 pm

      @ Steve Lombardi:

      I know no one is forcing me to read this blog. I want to want to read this blog because I appreciate your humor and, quite often, your analysis.

      However, I also find you making arguments I don’t agree with. This is fine, except there is often virtually no analysis to back up your arguments. When someone asks you to explain your reasoning, you often ignore them or, to use a term I saw you use yesterday, deflect them.

      If you are interested to know, I like a lot of what is written here, it’s just that I have found that your analysis has decreased substantially (mostly in content).

      As you said, there are a lot of blogs the are ‘willing to spoon feed the fanboys the pablum that they crave’. They are on one end of the spectrum and I can’t say I find any of them particularly credible (or interesting, for that matter).

      Sadly, I think this site is now on the other side of the spectrum. I wouldn’t be so honest if I wasn’t truly torn over this because, as I have said, I have been reading this blog consistently for years.

      ‘Either way, it’s the same to me’.

      That also makes me sad. I would think you’d have an appreciation for people like myself who have consistently followed your site for years…
      Is this really the case?

    27. Raf
      December 17th, 2010 | 3:05 pm

      Steve Lombardi wrote:

      Look at the numbers. No one does what he did…except Bonds in 2002, and, we all know what was the power behind that now.

      That isn’t necessarily true. Players get hot or cold over the course of a handful of at-bats, and what they do over a handful of at-bats doesn’t necessarily indicate their talent level.

    28. mwach1
      December 17th, 2010 | 3:06 pm

      (mostly in content)

      (mostly in quantity**)

    29. December 17th, 2010 | 3:48 pm

      Raf wrote:

      That isn’t necessarily true. Players get hot or cold over the course of a handful of at-bats, and what they do over a handful of at-bats doesn’t necessarily indicate their talent level.

      No one does what A-Rod did over the entire 2009 Post-Season. See:

      http://waswatching.com/2010/03/15/the-yankees-can-thank-a-rod-for-their-2009-ring/

      and

      http://bbref.com/pi/shareit/rPRwX

      A-Rod ’09 and Bonds ’02 stand alone.

    30. December 17th, 2010 | 3:54 pm

      mwach1 wrote:

      I would think you’d have an appreciation for people like myself who have consistently followed your site for years…

      I do appreciate those who appreciate what I do here. But, that’s not the reason why I do it. And, what I have no tolerance for is anyone making that “threat” of “I don’t like what I’m reading here, so, I may never read it again.” Every time I hear that, my reaction is the same: Don’t let the door hit in you in the ass on the way out.

      Again, I if I wrote this blog with the intent to please the masses, I’d care if someone said they were taking their ball and going home. But, this blog is an outlet for me. A place to vent and celebrate. And, share, if anyone is interested. But, if they’re not, that’s cool. Like I said: No one is forced to read it. And, anyone who wants to complain about it, or me, and then they keep reading it…well…that’s their issue, I suppose.

    31. December 17th, 2010 | 4:01 pm

      mwach1 wrote:

      When someone asks you to explain your reasoning, you often ignore them

      Yup. Know why? It’s simple: I’m expressing my opinion here. Never do I claim that what I am writing is the law and that all Yankees fans must bow to it, etc. I’m entitled to have an opinion and I should not be required to defend why I have a certain opinion. And, it should be my choice, only, if I elect to expand on it.

      Hey, I get it. There’s a whole gaggle out there who live for debate and the like. The law school crowd. They want to go toe to toe on everything like it’s the Supreme Court or something. Me? That’s not my thing. I think I have a right to have an opinion, and to express it, without having the requirement to defend myself or explain it to every schoolboy who wants to play lawyer.

    32. mwach1
      December 17th, 2010 | 4:05 pm

      @ Steve Lombardi:

      OK. I guess I misunderstood the purpose of this site– I thought it was about objective analysis of all things Yankees. I get it now (and I’m not being facetious).

    33. Scout
      December 17th, 2010 | 4:05 pm

      As a long-time Cashman agnostic, I sometimes agree with Steve’s position but often disagree. The conversation here tends to be civil. Whenever Steve climbs aboard his anti-Cashman hobby horse without much of an argument, the discussants here call him on it. The regulars here who applaud Cashman can be counted on to force Stave to defend himself if his original post is more snide than substantive, and he usually mounts a spirited defense. Unlike some other sites — and RAB is a clear example — the commentators here don’t fall in love with the cuteness of their inside references, so we usually do talk baseball. I’ll stick around.

    34. December 17th, 2010 | 4:53 pm

      @ Steve Lombardi:

      Hang in there.. Don’t see why this blog’s existence so bothers others. When I have an issue with something you wrote, I come here and say it to your face, instead of making passive-aggressive little coughing potshots behind your back worthy of a sorority girl.

      You are who you are. If others don’t like it, tough. You’ve been more than fair with those who disagree with you. I don’t expect you to ever see my way on A-Rod, and that’s cool. It would be a boring world if we all agreed on everything.

    35. Raf
      December 17th, 2010 | 4:57 pm

      Steve Lombardi wrote:

      No one does what A-Rod did over the entire 2009 Post-Season. See:
      http://waswatching.com/2010/03/15/the-yankees-can-thank-a-rod-for-their-2009-ring/
      and
      http://bbref.com/pi/shareit/rPRwX
      A-Rod ’09 and Bonds ’02 stand alone.

      According to your study (in the second link), the only reason they stand alone is because they played 10 games in a postseason; the names change when sorting by AB’s or PA’s, or any of the “production” columns (OBP, SLG, OPS)… Am I reading that chart right?

      Scout wrote:

      Unlike some other sites — and RAB is a clear example — the commentators here don’t fall in love with the cuteness of their inside references, so we usually do talk baseball. I’ll stick around.

      Yep. I was surprised that some people/sites have such vitriol towards Steve. It’s one thing to disagree; we all don’t see eye to eye on certain things, but we’re all cool and civil about it.

    36. December 17th, 2010 | 5:19 pm

      @ Raf: “Yep. I was surprised that some people/sites have such vitriol towards Steve. It’s one thing to disagree; we all don’t see eye to eye on certain things, but we’re all cool and civil about it.”

      I agree. That whole mindset is something I just don’t understand. I criticize MSM reporters all the time, because they’re getting paid for it, but I never use my blog to snark on fellow bloggers. If Steve ever gets on my last nerve and I can’t stand reading him anymore, I’ll stop and go away. I won’t waste a minute of my time badmouthing him on my blog or anywhere else.

      The thing that irritates me the most about this is that Steve is probably the best Yankee blogger out there when it comes to supporting others’ work. He’s promoted my stuff, and many, many other bloggers as well. He doesn’t deserve these snotty little comments said behind his back simply because he doesn’t share the party line on Cashman. Let alone having those snotty little comments brought to his site to force a reaction out of him. Grrrrrrrrr.

    37. Evan3457
      December 17th, 2010 | 7:30 pm

      Steve Lombardi wrote:

      lisaswan wrote:
      So was A-Rod’s. Unless you have proof of anything past that, this is all conjecture.
      At this point, agreed, 100% – that’s all it is. But, the beauty of the truth is that it cannot be destroyed. It can be hidden, at times. But, eventually, the truth always bubbles up to the surface. It’s just a matter of time on A-Rod’s 2009 post-season fuel. Look at the numbers. No one does what he did…except Bonds in 2002, and, we all know what was the power behind that now.

      *ahem* Carlos Beltran, 2004, say hi. Nobody’s ever accused him of PED, as far as I know.
      So does Billy Hatcher, 1990.
      So does Paul Molitor, 1993. (Paul used cocaine, but that’s not a PED. Probably.)
      And Albert Pujols, 2004.

      …and on and on and on like this, throughout post-season history.

    38. Evan3457
      December 17th, 2010 | 7:34 pm

      Steve Lombardi wrote:

      Raf wrote:
      That isn’t necessarily true. Players get hot or cold over the course of a handful of at-bats, and what they do over a handful of at-bats doesn’t necessarily indicate their talent level.
      No one does what A-Rod did over the entire 2009 Post-Season. See:
      http://waswatching.com/2010/03/15/the-yankees-can-thank-a-rod-for-their-2009-ring/
      and
      http://bbref.com/pi/shareit/rPRwX
      If you’re talking about A-Rod overall stats, as I’ve just shown, there are many example of hitters hitting as well throughout a post-season run.

      If you’re talking about how clutch his hits were, I’ve never seen ANY evidence showing that PED use improves clutch hitting especially.
      A-Rod ’09 and Bonds ’02 stand alone.

    39. December 17th, 2010 | 10:39 pm

      Thanks for the kind and supporting words – but, don’t worry about me y’all.

      I always consider the source. And, if some fat guy in a Yankees cap who spends every waking moment of his life banging away on Twitter wants to use his time lamenting about my blogging skills, to somehow, I guess, make himself feel/look better, it’s not something that I take to heart.

      I’ve shared this more than once: I fully realize that I’m a middle aged man playing in the blogging sandbox that is mostly full of emerging adults. And, as such, I have to expect some of childish behavior from those who, for some reason, see me as competition.

      Again, I just consider the source, file it away, and go about my business anyway.

    Leave a reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.