• Lucchino & Levine Are At It, Again

    Posted by on February 22nd, 2014 · Comments (21)

    Via Sean McAdam

    The rivarly between the players on the field — save for an occasional Ryan Dempster target practice at A-Rod — has cooled. But as long as Larry Lucchino and Randy Levine are around, the Red Sox and Yankees will always be the Hatfields and the McCoys.

    In his annual spring-training meeting with the media on Friday, Lucchino seemed to take more than a little satisfaction in watching the Yankees spend more than a half-billion dollars this winter on free agents Brian McCann, Jacoby Ellsbury, Carlos Beltran and Masahiro Tanaka, trying to play catch-up to the world champion Red Sox.

    “We’re very different animals,” the Red Sox CEO said of the Sox and Yanks. “I’m proud of that difference. I always cringe when people lump us together.”

    By contrast, the Sox continued the philosophy that brought them a championship, signing complementary players — like catcher A.J. Pierzynski and pitcher Chris Capuano — to cheaper, shorter-term deals.

    The Yankees, said Lucchino, “are still, this year at least, relying heavily on their inimitable old-fashioned Yankees style of high-priced, long-term free agents. And I can’t say that I wish them well, but I think that we’ve taken a different approach.”

    Well, you knew Levine — the Yankees’ president and CEO, who has tangled with Lucchino in the past — wouldn’t take that lying down.

    “I feel bad for Larry; he constantly sees ghosts and is spooked by the Yankees,” Levine said. “But I can understand why, because under his and Bobby Valentine’s plan two years ago, the Red Sox were in last place.”

    Well then.

    “[Boston general manager] Ben Cherington and the Red Sox did a great job last year winning the World Series,” continued Levine, “but I’m confident [Yankee GM Brian Cashman and manager Joe Girardi] and our players will compete with a great Red Sox team to win a world championship this year.”

    Lucchino and Levine are both blowhards who need to learn to stay quiet. Lucchino only talks when he team has done well and then he crawls under a rock when they tank. And, Levine needs to learn that playing the ghosts card died in 2004. On the whole, they both need to wake up and realize that they are not Williams and DiMaggio, or Fisk and Munson, or even Schilling and A-Rod, and no one wants to hear a couple of stuffed shirts trying to be macho.

    Comments on Lucchino & Levine Are At It, Again

    1. redbug
      February 22nd, 2014 | 11:32 am

      Idiots deserve each other

    2. February 22nd, 2014 | 4:40 pm

      Typical of Lucchino to try to take credit for Boston’s mind blowing moneyball approach last year. I still can’t believe it. They were last in 2012, cobbled together a team, no one gave them a chance going into last year, and lo and behold everything went right, and I mean everything, and they won it all. Lucchino conveniently forgets Boston’s big spending days in the not so distant past.Oh well, he’s a dickhead and people all over baseball including those in Boston are well aware of it. I look for the Red Sox to regress some this year, as nobody can be that lucky two years in a row.

      P.S. Gee, maybe it was those god-awful,ugly redneck, Duck Dynasty beards that put them over the top.

    3. Mr. October
      February 22nd, 2014 | 9:03 pm

      I feel bad for [Cano] because I think he’s disappointed he’s not a Yankee…” – Randy L. Levine, Dec. 12, 2014.

      I feel bad for Larry; he constantly sees ghosts and is spooked by the Yankees…” – Randy L. Levine, Feb. 21, 2014.

      I feel bad for Yankees fans, because they have someone like Levine as an executive who can’t come up with a new line and who talks about spooking a much better organization from top-to-bottom in The Cashman Autononmy Era, and a defending world champion… Thankfully, neither of the two blowhards will stay quiet – it’s good for the rivalry.

    4. rsr
      February 23rd, 2014 | 6:22 pm

      “and lo and behold everything went right, and I mean everything, and they won it all.”

      I’m curious as to what ‘it all went right’ exactly means to you.

      Was it Joel Hanrahan, their new closer, going down for the season?

      Was it Andrew Bailey taking his place as the closer, and a couple of games later, also being lost for the season?

      Was it when Andrew Miller, who was easily their most dominant left hander out of the bullpen, went down with a foot injury in July and missed the rest of the season?

      Was it when Félix Doubront pitched so badly down the stretch they almost left him off the playoff roster?

      Was it Will Middlebrooks, a supposed future start, hitting .227 .271 .425?

      Was it David Ross, who was suppose to platoon with Salty, suffering two concussions and missing two months of the season?

      Please tell me again how everything went right. It’s a ludicrous statement. Did some things go great for the Red Sox? Of course. And every team that wins a WS has their share of luck. The Red Sox were no different. But claiming they won because they were lucky and everything went ‘right’ is complete nonsense and the worse kind of fandom.

    5. Mr. October
      February 23rd, 2014 | 7:58 pm

      rsr wrote:

      Please tell me again how everything went right. It’s a ludicrous statement. Did some things go great for the Red Sox? Of course. And every team that wins a WS has their share of luck. The Red Sox were no different. But claiming they won because they were lucky and everything went ‘right’ is complete nonsense and the worse kind of fandom.

      @ rsr:
      What about Clay Buchholz? Didn’t the Red Sox lose a pitcher with a 12-1 record from June-September? Is this your first visit to this site, or your first experience with “the worst kind of fandom?”

      Everything went right, because we’re talking about the Boston Red Sox, not The Cashman Yankees. The Cashman Yankees didn’t win from 2005-07 because of bad luck in the postseason with RISP, not because of mediocrity in the starting rotation. And The Cashman Yankees didn’t win in 2008 because of injuries. You didn’t know that?

      The Cashman Yankees didn’t win from 2010-12 because of more bad luck in the postseason with RISP, not because of mediocrity in the starting rotation in terms of depth, or a lack of production from a lineup of hitters that didn’t produce historically in the postseason, and hasn’t to this day. And The Cashman Yankees didn’t win in 2013, again, because of injuries. You didn’t know that?

      The Cashman Yankees won in 2009, because, let’s face it: The Cashman Yankees were the best team in baseball in each season from 2005-2013, and had to win at least once. Oh, and spending an average of about $220MM per year on payroll, while Boston was spending about $170MM per year, had nothing to do with The Cashman Yankees being the best team from 2005-2013: it was the genius of Brian Cashman, B.A. that made the Yankees the best team in baseball in each season from 2005-13.

      The Boston Red Sox have been “lucky” the way The Gene Michael Yankees were “lucky” to have had Mariano Rivera scouted and signed for $3,000.00, to sign Bernie Williams on his 17th birthday, to draft Andy Pettitte in the 22nd round, to draft Jorge Posada in the 24th round, to acquire David Cone for three minor league pitchers that were never successful at the Major League level, etc.

      Brian Cashman is the victim here: the victim of all of the “good luck” of 1990-2001 having to be balanced out with all of the bad luck of 2001-2013, and the Red Sox and their fans have been the beneficiaries. But the bad news for the Red Sox and their fans is that Brian Cashman’s luck is overdue to change. You didn’t know that?

    6. MJ Recanati
      February 23rd, 2014 | 9:18 pm

      @rsr:
      In normal times, having a Red Sox troll lurking on a Yankee site is the worst of our problems. Unfortunately, over the last 16 months, you’re not the worst troll to infest this ever-worsening site.

    7. Raf
      February 23rd, 2014 | 10:29 pm
    8. rsr
      February 24th, 2014 | 2:01 am

      “What about Clay Buchholz?”

      Yeah, kind of forgot him. Just more of that wonderful luck the Red Sox got in 2013.

      @ MJ Recanati: It doesn’t surprise me that you don’t understand the meaning of the word troll. Tell me where I’m actually wrong, or go get a dictionary and educate yourself on what a troll actually is.

    9. MJ Recanati
      February 24th, 2014 | 12:38 pm

      @rsr:
      You bore me. Go cheer for your team and leave us alone.

    10. Mr. October
      February 24th, 2014 | 9:41 pm

      rsr wrote:

      @ MJ Recanati: It doesn’t surprise me that you don’t understand the meaning of the word troll. Tell me where I’m actually wrong, or go get a dictionary and educate yourself on what a troll actually is.

      @ rsr:
      Of course, you’re not wrong at all, and what you wrote was very reasonable – a lot did not go according to plan with the Red Sox season, but Boston had the farm system, and the talent at the executive management level, to overcome what went wrong, and to win a World Series championship.

      The Red Sox did have some luck: if The Cashman Yankees had gotten to the postseason with a rotation of Sabathia (4.78 ERA), Kuroda (6.00 ERA from August – October), Pettitte (41 yrs. old), and Nova, I don’t think Boston would have had a chance; Boston was “lucky” to face a Detroit team with an injured Cabrera and a weakened bullpen, and a lesser St. Louis Cardinals team, and not that great Cashman starting rotation of 2013.

      If you are a Red Sox fan, I’m sure you’re very concerned about how good Michael Pineda looked throwing batting practice yesterday, or the possibility of Team Cashman having Andrew Bailey for four weeks in 2014… Is Brian Cashman more popular than Ted Williams in Boston yet?

    11. Greg H.
      February 25th, 2014 | 10:53 am

      @ MJ Recanati:
      I thought it was just the Hydra again.

    12. Mr. October
      February 25th, 2014 | 6:12 pm

      rsr wrote:

      Tell me where I’m actually wrong…

      @ rsr:
      No response to your legitimate question? I’m surprised…

      How’s this for “logic:”

      From 2004-present, Cashman’s New York Yankees, (1 AL Pennant and 1 World Series championship) have been a more successful organization than the Red Sox (3 AL Pennants and 3 World Series championships), because winning a 162-game regular season is more significant than winning a 19-game postseason, and the Cashman Yankees have won more division titles.

      The 162-game regular season is more significant because of: 1. the number of games (162); 2. the fact that regular season success is a “prerequisite” to postseason “eligibility;” and 3. the “fact” that baseball in general, and the postseason in particular, is “mostly luck.” The contention that the postseason, in particular, is “mostly luck” is supported by the fact that from 1995-2013, only 3 teams with the highest regular season WPCT won the World Series, or 1-in-6, which is the equivalent of the odds that come with the rolling of dice.

      @ rsr:
      Are you getting all of this, “you troll?”

      So, for example, if the Cashman Yankees win 92 games in 2014 and “make the playoffs” and lose an LDS in 3 games, and the Boston Red Sox win 91 games in 2014, and “make the playoffs” and win the World Series, then the Cashman Yankees were still the better team, because “162 > 19,” and the Cashman Yankees won more games (1) in the regular season – the Cashman Yankees were just not as “lucky” as the Boston Red Sox in the postseason. How’s that for “logic,” or the “worst kind of fandom,” or something else you might want to call it?

      Of course, if the Cashman Yankees win a World Series championship in 2014, there will be some explanation as to why the team with the second-highest payroll in MLB, and the dumbest GM in MLB, was the best team in MLB in 2014, despite the fact that it did not have the best regular season record in MLB…

      @ rsr:
      You got all of that? As one frequent commenter on this site has previously noted: “Never argue with an idiot – he will only bring you down to his level, and beat you with experience.”

    13. Evan3457
      February 25th, 2014 | 10:57 pm

      Mr. October wrote:

      From 2004-present, Cashman’s New York Yankees, (1 AL Pennant and 1 World Series championship) have been a more successful organization than the Red Sox (3 AL Pennants and 3 World Series championships), because winning a 162-game regular season is more significant than winning a 19-game postseason, and the Cashman Yankees have won more division titles.

      Nobody here has ever made that argument, except for you, using it as a strawman.

      The 162-game regular season is more significant because of: 1. the number of games (162)

      Any objective analyst of baseball, including the two you cite to support your ideas, would agree that the long regular is a more significant test of overall team quality than the a 5-or 7-game postseason series. It’s not even a close or difficult call.

      2. the fact that regular season success is a “prerequisite” to postseason “eligibility;”

      Obviously, and only you dismiss that obvious fact.

      3. the “fact” that baseball in general, and the postseason in particular, is “mostly luck.”

      Never been argued by me, or anyone else here as far as I remember. Only the postseason. Luck, especially injuries, does play a larger role than is generally acknowledged in the regular season, but I wouldn’t say the regular season is “mostly” luck. Never have sad it, in fact.

      The contention that the postseason, in particular, is “mostly luck” is supported by the fact that from 1995-2013, only 3 teams with the highest regular season WPCT won the World Series, or 1-in-6, which is the equivalent of the odds that come with the rolling of dice.

      As you have been repeatedly told, this is only one of several arguments in favor of the idea that the postseason is “mostly a crapshoot”, which is similar to saying that the outcome of the postseason, even when projected at the end of that year’s regular season, is unpredictable, and not exactly the same thing as saying the postseason is “mostly luck”.

      Are you getting all of this, “you troll?”
      So, for example, if the Cashman Yankees win 92 games in 2014 and “make the playoffs” and lose an LDS in 3 games, and the Boston Red Sox win 91 games in 2014, and “make the playoffs” and win the World Series, then the Cashman Yankees were still the better team, because “162 > 19,” and the Cashman Yankees won more games (1) in the regular season – the Cashman Yankees were just not as “lucky” as the Boston Red Sox in the postseason. How’s that for “logic,” or the “worst kind of fandom,” or something else you might want to call it?

      Yet another straw man argument. Making a series of straw man arguments in lieu of genuine arguments…how’s that for logic? When combined with an unwarranted attitude of smug superiority…well, that may not be the “worst kind of fandom”, but it’s not the best kind of fandom, either.

      Of course, if the Cashman Yankees win a World Series championship in 2014, there will be some explanation as to why the team with the second-highest payroll in MLB, and the dumbest GM in MLB, was the best team in MLB in 2014, despite the fact that it did not have the best regular season record in MLB…

      Nobody’s made or is going to make that kind of argument, either. The Yankees won it all in 2009. That’s one piece of evidence they were the best team that year, but by itself, it’s not sufficient. That they won the most games that year is another. That they were favored to win it all after the regular season and before the postseason is another. (And until the Red Sox it all in 2013, they were the last post-season favorite to win it all.)That they played over .700 ball for the last 92 games of the regular season is another. Another piece of evidence is that the Yankees led all teams in MLB in FWAR in 2009.

      One piece of evidence against the idea is that the Dodgers had a slightly higher run differential for the season as a whole, but it’s outweighed by the cumulative evidence on the other side.

    14. Mr. October
      February 26th, 2014 | 12:42 am

      Evan3457 wrote:

      … ANY short series in baseball IS a crapshoot, whether it takes place in April, September or October… And the proof of this is the large number of series EVERY YEAR where teams under .500 beat teams over .500… Every short series is a crapshoot. In the regular season, there are more and larger mismatches… than in the post-season (sic). This supports the arguement (sic) that the regular season is much less a crapshoot than the post-season (sic), and therefore, conversely, the post-season (sic) is much more of a crapshoot than the regular season.

      … it looked to me like [the Yankees] poor hitting… in key spots, doomed them in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2010, 2011, and 2012 [in the postseason, not their 39-44 year-old starting pitching]…

      … Beane’s use of the words “(frigging) luck” instead of unpredictable is a distinction without a real difference… The post-season (sic) is a crapshoot…

      “What happens after [the regular season] is (bleeping) luck”.”
      “What happens after [the regular season] is (bleeping) luck”.”
      “What happens after [the regular season] is (bleeping) luck”.”
      “What happens after [the regular season] is (bleeping) luck”.”

      Repeated four times… Maybe it will sink in if I repeat it often enough.

      Evan3457 wrote:

      … I wouldn’t say the regular season is “mostly” luck. Never have sad it, in fact.

      Evan3457 wrote:

      … the postseason is “mostly a crapshoot”, which is similar to saying that the outcome of the postseason… is unpredictable, and not exactly the same thing as saying the postseason is “mostly luck”.

      @ rsr:
      LOL… See what I mean? Have you ever come across nonsense like this before?

    15. Mr. October
      February 26th, 2014 | 1:28 am

      Evan3457 wrote:

      It would be quite hysterical to watch [you] try to explain what else [Beane] could have meant by [referring to the playoffs as a "crapshoot," if he was not referring to predictability].

      Evan3457 wrote:

      … the postseason is “mostly a crapshoot”, which is similar to saying that the outcome of the postseason… is unpredictable, and not exactly the same thing as saying the postseason is “mostly luck”.

      @ Evan3457:
      You finally got it (or admitted it): predicability and luck are not the same thing. Congratulations…

      I guess it’s no longer “quite hysterical” to note, as was noted earlier, that a $50 million Beane team, or a $170 million Lucchino team, is more dependent on “luck,” or should be, than a $229 million Cashman/Levine team, when playing a $229 million Cashman/Levine team. But with the postseason pitching that typically comes with a $229 million Cashman/Levine team, that isn’t the case…

    16. Evan3457
      February 26th, 2014 | 6:53 pm

      Mr. October wrote:

      Evan3457 wrote:
      … ANY short series in baseball IS a crapshoot, whether it takes place in April, September or October… And the proof of this is the large number of series EVERY YEAR where teams under .500 beat teams over .500… Every short series is a crapshoot. In the regular season, there are more and larger mismatches… than in the post-season (sic). This supports the arguement (sic) that the regular season is much less a crapshoot than the post-season (sic), and therefore, conversely, the post-season (sic) is much more of a crapshoot than the regular season.
      … it looked to me like [the Yankees] poor hitting… in key spots, doomed them in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2010, 2011, and 2012 [in the postseason, not their 39-44 year-old starting pitching]…
      … Beane’s use of the words “(frigging) luck” instead of unpredictable is a distinction without a real difference… The post-season (sic) is a crapshoot…
      “What happens after [the regular season] is (bleeping) luck”.”
      “What happens after [the regular season] is (bleeping) luck”.”
      “What happens after [the regular season] is (bleeping) luck”.”
      “What happens after [the regular season] is (bleeping) luck”.”
      Repeated four times… Maybe it will sink in if I repeat it often enough.
      Evan3457 wrote:
      … I wouldn’t say the regular season is “mostly” luck. Never have sad it, in fact.

      That’s right, and the section you just quoted above doesn’t contradict what I wrote above in this thread, despite your inability to correctly analyze the two.

      A short series is a crapshoot. I said that because it’s true. But the regular season is not ONE short series; it is a chain of over 50 of them, strung together over six months, and no one series can ever eliminate a team from title contention until, at the very least 40 of those short series have been played.

      See how stupid you are? Of course you don’t.

      Evan3457 wrote:
      … the postseason is “mostly a crapshoot”, which is similar to saying that the outcome of the postseason… is unpredictable, and not exactly the same thing as saying the postseason is “mostly luck”.
      @ rsr:
      LOL… See what I mean? Have you ever come across nonsense like this before?

      Again, your failure to understand the obvious doesn’t make it nonsense.

    17. Mr. October
      February 26th, 2014 | 6:54 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      Nobody here has ever made that argument, except for you, using it as a strawman.

      @ Evan3457:
      One of the ‘R’s did… In fact, one of the ‘R’s has made it so many times over the years, and on so many different threads, I find it hard to believe for one second that you don’t recall this “argument” having been made. And you wouldn’t know a “straw man,” if Ray Bolger bit you on the ***, so I don’t quite understand why you continue to use the term, either…

      The New York Yankees did not play .490 postseason baseball from 2006-2013 because the “post-season (sic) is ‘mostly luck’;” The New York Yankees played .490 postseason baseball from 2006-2013 for a number of reasons, the foremost of which was a lack of depth and quality in the starting rotation, especially from 2005-07.

      The responsibility for that lack of depth and quality in the starting rotation rests with one Brian Cashman, B.A., the highest-paid G.M. in M.L.B. for the period of 2006-13, and the son of long-time George M. Steinbrenner III personal friend and business partner, John Cashman – not with Lonn Trost, Esq., Randy Levine, Esq., Louise Meanwell, or anyone else.

    18. Evan3457
      February 26th, 2014 | 6:55 pm

      Mr. October wrote:

      Evan3457 wrote:
      It would be quite hysterical to watch [you] try to explain what else [Beane] could have meant by [referring to the playoffs as a "crapshoot," if he was not referring to predictability].
      Evan3457 wrote:
      … the postseason is “mostly a crapshoot”, which is similar to saying that the outcome of the postseason… is unpredictable, and not exactly the same thing as saying the postseason is “mostly luck”.
      @ Evan3457:
      You finally got it (or admitted it): predicability and luck are not the same thing. Congratulations…

      No, I didn’t. Again, you fail reading comprehension. I said they’re not exactly the same thing. Jeez, how dull you are.

      I guess it’s no longer “quite hysterical” to note, as was noted earlier, that a $50 million Beane team, or a $170 million Lucchino team, is more dependent on “luck,” or should be, than a $229 million Cashman/Levine team, when playing a $229 million Cashman/Levine team. But with the postseason pitching that typically comes with a $229 million Cashman/Levine team, that isn’t the case…

      Not necessarily true. Never has been. Never will be.

    19. Evan3457
      February 26th, 2014 | 7:15 pm

      Mr. October wrote:

      Evan3457 wrote:
      Nobody here has ever made that argument, except for you, using it as a strawman.
      @ Evan3457:
      One of the ‘R’s did… In fact, one of the ‘R’s has made it so many times over the years, and on so many different threads, I find it hard to believe for one second that you don’t recall this “argument” having been made.

      Not true in the slightest. You change some words, which change the meaning, and combine several different altered statements in ways they were not intended to be combined and declare “vicotry”.

      And you wouldn’t know a “straw man,” if Ray Bolger bit you on the ***, so I don’t quite understand why you continue to use the term, either…
      </blockquote
      I use it because it's appropriate. Duh.

      The New York Yankees did not play .490 postseason baseball from 2006-2013 because the “post-season (sic) …”

      Please call the Associate Press and let them know that “post-season” is an unacceptable variant…

      The NCAA says Southern University has a “significant amount of work” to do before its athletic programs can become eligible for post-season play, but the university hopes to get that work done in time for its basketball teams to compete in conference and NCAA tournaments.”

      Source: http://www.sacbee.com/2014/02/20/6176000/ncaa-discusses-southerns-post.html

      is ‘mostly luck’;” The New York Yankees played .490 postseason baseball from 2006-2013 for a number of reasons, the foremost of which was a lack of depth and quality in the starting rotation, especially from 2005-07.

      So they went 5-9 (.357) in post-season play from 2005-7…and 20-17 (.541) in post-season play since then.

      The Tigers, with the superior GM, and the vastly superior starting pitching, who have beaten the Yankees twice in the post-season in that time, have a record of 17-18 (.485) in that time. Get that? The Tigers, with the “superior GM” and the “vastly superior starting pitching”, have a WORSE post-season winning percentage over the 3 “superior” seasons, than the Yankees do over those 7 seasons you combine.

      Want to give the Tigers the “win” by adding in the 8-5 they went in 2006? OK, but then I’m going to add in that the Tigers failed to make the post-season for 4 years in that period, whereas the Yankees missed the playoffs once (twice if you now add 2013 to the Yankee side).

      The responsibility for that lack of depth and quality in the starting rotation rests with one Brian Cashman, B.A., the highest-paid G.M. in M.L.B. for the period of 2006-13, and the son of long-time George M. Steinbrenner III personal friend and business partner, John Cashman – not with Lonn Trost, Esq., Randy Levine, Esq., Louise Meanwell, or anyone else.

      Solely with Cashman? Hardly.
      Mostly with Cashman? Possibly.
      Substantially with Cashman? Yeah, I’d agree with that.

    20. Mr. October
      February 26th, 2014 | 7:45 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      The Tigers, with the superior GM, and the vastly superior starting pitching…

      … And annual payrolls of $80-120 million less than The Yankees, with the inferior Senior Vice President and general moron – anyone who thinks Beane, Dombrowksi, Friedman, etc. would not have done better than one Pennant in 10 years with approximately $2.5 Billion in payroll to spend is also a moron…

    21. Evan3457
      February 26th, 2014 | 8:11 pm

      Mr. October wrote:

      Evan3457 wrote:
      The Tigers, with the superior GM, and the vastly superior starting pitching…
      … And annual payrolls of $80-120 million less than The Yankees, with the inferior Senior Vice President and general moron – anyone who thinks Beane, Dombrowksi, Friedman, etc. would not have done better than one Pennant in 10 years with approximately $2.5 Billion in payroll to spend is also a moron…

      But starting pitching is everything!
      Payroll doesn’t matter.
      Bench doesn’t matter.
      Bullpen doesn’t matter.
      Lineup doesn’t matter.
      Team defense doesn’t matter.
      Game managing doesn’t matter.
      Luck doesn’t matter.

      It’s starting pitching, 83.45916427432840091264875% of the time!

      Gee, it’s fun using straw man arguments. I should do this more often.

    Leave a reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.