Two seemingly unrelated news stories yesterday, taken in tandem, offer a clear illustration of everything that's wrong with the religious right's control over the President of the United States and the Republican party.
Senator David Vitter (R-La.) admitted that he was a customer of the so-called "D.C. Madam." Now, personally, I do not think prostitution should be illegal, nor do I think the consensual private sexual activity of politicians (or anyone else, for that matter) is anyone's business. When it comes to senators, I am only concerned with what they say about policy and how they vote on legislation. I do not care who they like to have sex with, where they like to have the sex, and what props they use when having the sex.
I do, however, care about senators imposing their religiously influenced views on the governing of this country, and I absolutely care when they are busted as flaming hypocrites. You see, Vitter isn't just any senator, but a conservative who rode a family values platform to his election. He also had previously denied being involved with a brothel. The Louisiana Weekly accused him in 2002 and 2004 of visiting a madam in New Orleans, but Vitter denied the claims.
Vitter's hypocrisy is appalling enough on its face. But what really gets me angry is that politicians like Vitter legislate policies that, often, are at odds with the beliefs of the majority of the American people, and then they can't even live up to the standards in which they supposedly believe. Consider that Vitter was helping Bush block stem cell funding while he was regularly engaging in the services of a prostitute.
Which brings me to the second news story, that former U.S. surgeon general Richard Carmona said that while he served under President Bush, administration officials censored what he could talk about, especially on issues relating to the science on stem cell research, contraceptives and sex education. "Anything that doesn't fit into the political appointees' ideological, theological or political agenda is ignored, marginalized or simply buried," Carmona said in a Yahoo!/Reuters article. Carmona went on to add, "The problem with this approach is that in public health, as in a democracy, there is nothing worse than ignoring science, or marginalizing the voice of science for reasons driven by changing political winds. The job of surgeon general is to be the doctor of the nation, not the doctor of a political party."
Carmona has nailed the problem on the head.
I have written many times in this space (most recently on June 7, "Bush Needs to Remember He Is President, Not Pastor") about how Bush's religious beliefs have driven policies that fly in the face of science and, even more importantly, go against the wishes of the vast majority of Americans (such as his stance on stem cell research). To hear that Carmona, the chief medical official of the United States, was not allowed to give scientific opinions or advice that went against Bush's religious beliefs is horrifying. It makes us sound like a third world theocracy, more like Iran than Europe. And, when we read of the behavior of individuals like Vitter, pushing a religious agenda while frequenting a brothel, it makes the religiously influenced policies all the more repugnant.
Vitter is not the only hypocrite to emerge in the past year. Let's not forget conservative Congressman Mark Foley (R-Fla.), a crusader against child exploitation, who resigned after it came out that he was sending sexually explicit messages to teenage boys. Or, Ted Haggard, the head of the National Association of Evangelicals, who railed against homosexuality, all while, in turns out, he was regularly visiting a male prostitute (and buying crystal meth). After the Foley scandal broke, The Nation reported that a memo was leaked to Christian conservatives containing the names of closeted Republican Congressional staffers, and at that same time, Bill Maher told Larry King on CNN that then Chairman of the Republican National Committee, Ken Mehlman, was gay.
Isn't it time for Americans to turn to policy and reason when selecting candidates, instead of looking for the one that is the most religious? You might think so, but Emory University professor David Westen would disagree. Westen, the author of "The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation," is, according to a profile in yesterday's New York Times, the hot strategist of the moment. He argues that while Democrats have traditionally relied on logical arguments to make their points, voters make their decisions based on emotion, often without the voter realizing that he/she is doing it.
In this way, the article points out, Westen takes the opposite approach of books like "What's the Matter With Kansas?" by Thomas Frank or Al Gore's "Assault on Reason," which try and track the analytical decision-making process of the electorate. Westen says that voters don't make choices based on self-interest or factual analysis, but react to emotional responses triggered by the candidates. He gives as an example the different images that occur in the brains of urban and rural people when presented with the word "gun" (crime and violence for city folk, family, nature and rights for country folk). No wonder, he ways, that the phrase "gun control" has such negative connotations for voters outside of cities.
I'm all for any strategy that will help keep Republicans out of positions of power. If changing the conversation from "gun control" to keeping arms out of the hands of terrorists (as Westen suggests) will help, that's fine with me. The bottom line is that it's time to take the country back from religiously driven politicians who put their beliefs before science and the best interests of the country.
Hopefully, the more hypocrites like Vitter get caught indulging themselves in activities that they have attacked in their campaigns, the less voters will vote based on the religious or moral stances of candidates. If that happens, everyone wins. A government based on science and logic that serves the true needs of the American people? It would be nice for a change.
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Iraq is the Monkey on Bush's Back
"Hi, my name is George, and I'm an addict."
No, I'm not suggesting that President George W. Bush is back on the sauce or coke or any other mind-altering substance. No, I think it's quite clear that Bush is addicted to Iraq, and he needs help to kick the habit. I don't care if it's a 12-step group, a methadone clinic or a trip to an escort service (I hear David Vitter, the Republican U.S. Senator from Louisiana, can give him a phone number). Whatever W needs to do to break this addiction is fine with me. Even if it means going back on booze and/or coke. I don't care. Because much like the beleaguered family of an addict, the American people can't take much more of this. We just need his madness to stop.
In the early years of the war, Bush loved to tell us how great things were. In an April 13, 2004 press conference (mainly addressing the upcoming June 30th transfer of power to the new Iraqi government), he said, "It's not a civil war; it's not a popular uprising. Most of Iraq is relatively stable. Most Iraqis, by far, reject violence and oppose dictatorship." In that same address, he said, "As a proud and independent people, Iraqis do not support an indefinite occupation -- and neither does America. We're not an imperial power, as nations such as Japan and Germany can attest. We are a liberating power, as nations in Europe and Asia can attest, as well." He went on to say that sovereignty "requires Iraqis to assume responsibility for their own future."
It has been more than three years since Bush's remarks. The situation on the ground was dire then, as he noted in the April 13, 2004 address, saying, "This has been tough weeks [sic] in that country. Coalition forces have encountered serious violence in some areas of Iraq." The conditions have grown far worse, but Bush refuses to adapt, as if wishing really hard will make his policies work against all evidence to the contrary.
A month after the Democrats won enough seats to take control of Congress, almost solely on the issue of discontent with Bush's handling of Iraq, the Iraq Study Group submitted its report. Bush, in a December 6, 2006 statement, said, "It is a report that brings some really very interesting proposals, and we will take every proposal seriously and we will act in a timely fashion. The commission is headed up to Congress, and I urge the members of Congress to take this report seriously. While they won't agree with every proposal -- and we probably won't agree with every proposal -- it, nevertheless, is an opportunity to come together and to work together on this important issue."
Of course, he had no intention whatsoever of listening to the study group or working with the Democrats. The Democrats in Congress embraced the report, while Bush rejected it out of hand, opting instead for a "surge" of extra troops. He then steamrolled the Democrats in Congress who tried to change his Iraq policy and went on with more of the same, watching as casualties piled up, money was thrown away, and things didn't get any better.
Bush's mantra since the surge has been "wait and see what happens." Well, the first report on his policy will be issued in a few days, and the press is reporting that the assessment will not be favorable. So, will this finally get Bush's attention? Will this be his rock bottom? His moment to confront his addiction to this war? Uh, no. A Yahoo!/AP article reported that White House spokesperson Tony Snow said this morning that what is needed is ... say it with me ... more time. Snow argued that the report only covers the beginning of the surge, and more time is needed to see if it will work out or not.
It's time to tell Bush, no, sorry, you're out of time.
This is the point in the addiction cycle when the addict needs an intervention. He needs his friends and loved ones to gather and tell him that while they love him, he has a problem that has to be addressed. A weak intervention effort has been started by his Republican colleagues in the Senate. GOP Senators, ranging from moderates like Susan Collins of Maine to more conservative legislators like Pete Domenici of New Mexico, are expressing their concerns with Bush's Iraq policy. They haven't said they will vote to change Bush's policies yet, but their outspokenness cannot be music to the White House's ears. For an intervention to work, the friends and family have to be strong, but it's a start, I suppose.
It's time for all Americans, Democrats and Republicans alike, to stand up and say, "I'm sorry Mr. President, you are out of time. It's time to see if the Iraqis are willing to govern themselves."
Rather than reading about Iraqi lawmakers rising to the occasion, we are reading about no-confidence votes meant to bring down Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and a lack of movement by Iraqi lawmakers on dividing the nation's oil riches. More than 70 of the 275 members of parliament don't even show up anymore, boycotting the political process. It's time to say to the Iraqis, "We took out your dictator, we gave you more than four years of muscle to try and get your act together, it's time for you to decide what you want to do with your future. But you will do so without taking one more American soldier's life." As long as we're there, they have no incentive to make tough decisions. It's time to move them to the brink, have them decide what they are really willing to do (and not do) for a peaceful Iraq.
Much like one would expect from a junkie, Bush's addiction is hurting the country's finances. According to a Yahoo!/AP article, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service reported that with the increased costs of the surge, the U.S. is spending nearly half-a-trillion dollars on Iraq this year. Let me write that out in numerals to stress how big the figure really is: $500,000,000,000. Think about all the domestic problems we face that require long-term commitments of money: border security, port security, social security, Medicare, health care reform, and changes to help stem global warming, just to name a few, but the list could go on forever. We simply can't afford to throw away any more money on Bush's addiction.
Enough is enough. Much like there comes a time when a spouse decides that he/she can no longer allow his/her spouse's addiction to drag down their family any longer, the American people have to take action to ensure that Bush's addiction to Iraq doesn't damage the country any further.
A Yahoo!/AP article reported that Democratic Senators Carl Levin of Michigan and Jack Reed of Rhode Island have proposed legislation that would call for Bush to start removing troops from Iraq in 120 days and end all combat by April 30, 2008 (with exceptions for counterterrorism and training). Bush may or may not be able to count on his Republican minions to back his increasingly destructive single-minded pursuit of a failed policy in Iraq, but the American people need to be sure that there are consequences for anyone who enables Bush.
The time for waiting is over. Action to end the war in Iraq must be taken now. Bush's addiction needs to be addressed. The worst thing to do to a junkie is give him money and help him get a fix. Bush needs to go cold turkey.
No, I'm not suggesting that President George W. Bush is back on the sauce or coke or any other mind-altering substance. No, I think it's quite clear that Bush is addicted to Iraq, and he needs help to kick the habit. I don't care if it's a 12-step group, a methadone clinic or a trip to an escort service (I hear David Vitter, the Republican U.S. Senator from Louisiana, can give him a phone number). Whatever W needs to do to break this addiction is fine with me. Even if it means going back on booze and/or coke. I don't care. Because much like the beleaguered family of an addict, the American people can't take much more of this. We just need his madness to stop.
In the early years of the war, Bush loved to tell us how great things were. In an April 13, 2004 press conference (mainly addressing the upcoming June 30th transfer of power to the new Iraqi government), he said, "It's not a civil war; it's not a popular uprising. Most of Iraq is relatively stable. Most Iraqis, by far, reject violence and oppose dictatorship." In that same address, he said, "As a proud and independent people, Iraqis do not support an indefinite occupation -- and neither does America. We're not an imperial power, as nations such as Japan and Germany can attest. We are a liberating power, as nations in Europe and Asia can attest, as well." He went on to say that sovereignty "requires Iraqis to assume responsibility for their own future."
It has been more than three years since Bush's remarks. The situation on the ground was dire then, as he noted in the April 13, 2004 address, saying, "This has been tough weeks [sic] in that country. Coalition forces have encountered serious violence in some areas of Iraq." The conditions have grown far worse, but Bush refuses to adapt, as if wishing really hard will make his policies work against all evidence to the contrary.
A month after the Democrats won enough seats to take control of Congress, almost solely on the issue of discontent with Bush's handling of Iraq, the Iraq Study Group submitted its report. Bush, in a December 6, 2006 statement, said, "It is a report that brings some really very interesting proposals, and we will take every proposal seriously and we will act in a timely fashion. The commission is headed up to Congress, and I urge the members of Congress to take this report seriously. While they won't agree with every proposal -- and we probably won't agree with every proposal -- it, nevertheless, is an opportunity to come together and to work together on this important issue."
Of course, he had no intention whatsoever of listening to the study group or working with the Democrats. The Democrats in Congress embraced the report, while Bush rejected it out of hand, opting instead for a "surge" of extra troops. He then steamrolled the Democrats in Congress who tried to change his Iraq policy and went on with more of the same, watching as casualties piled up, money was thrown away, and things didn't get any better.
Bush's mantra since the surge has been "wait and see what happens." Well, the first report on his policy will be issued in a few days, and the press is reporting that the assessment will not be favorable. So, will this finally get Bush's attention? Will this be his rock bottom? His moment to confront his addiction to this war? Uh, no. A Yahoo!/AP article reported that White House spokesperson Tony Snow said this morning that what is needed is ... say it with me ... more time. Snow argued that the report only covers the beginning of the surge, and more time is needed to see if it will work out or not.
It's time to tell Bush, no, sorry, you're out of time.
This is the point in the addiction cycle when the addict needs an intervention. He needs his friends and loved ones to gather and tell him that while they love him, he has a problem that has to be addressed. A weak intervention effort has been started by his Republican colleagues in the Senate. GOP Senators, ranging from moderates like Susan Collins of Maine to more conservative legislators like Pete Domenici of New Mexico, are expressing their concerns with Bush's Iraq policy. They haven't said they will vote to change Bush's policies yet, but their outspokenness cannot be music to the White House's ears. For an intervention to work, the friends and family have to be strong, but it's a start, I suppose.
It's time for all Americans, Democrats and Republicans alike, to stand up and say, "I'm sorry Mr. President, you are out of time. It's time to see if the Iraqis are willing to govern themselves."
Rather than reading about Iraqi lawmakers rising to the occasion, we are reading about no-confidence votes meant to bring down Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and a lack of movement by Iraqi lawmakers on dividing the nation's oil riches. More than 70 of the 275 members of parliament don't even show up anymore, boycotting the political process. It's time to say to the Iraqis, "We took out your dictator, we gave you more than four years of muscle to try and get your act together, it's time for you to decide what you want to do with your future. But you will do so without taking one more American soldier's life." As long as we're there, they have no incentive to make tough decisions. It's time to move them to the brink, have them decide what they are really willing to do (and not do) for a peaceful Iraq.
Much like one would expect from a junkie, Bush's addiction is hurting the country's finances. According to a Yahoo!/AP article, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service reported that with the increased costs of the surge, the U.S. is spending nearly half-a-trillion dollars on Iraq this year. Let me write that out in numerals to stress how big the figure really is: $500,000,000,000. Think about all the domestic problems we face that require long-term commitments of money: border security, port security, social security, Medicare, health care reform, and changes to help stem global warming, just to name a few, but the list could go on forever. We simply can't afford to throw away any more money on Bush's addiction.
Enough is enough. Much like there comes a time when a spouse decides that he/she can no longer allow his/her spouse's addiction to drag down their family any longer, the American people have to take action to ensure that Bush's addiction to Iraq doesn't damage the country any further.
A Yahoo!/AP article reported that Democratic Senators Carl Levin of Michigan and Jack Reed of Rhode Island have proposed legislation that would call for Bush to start removing troops from Iraq in 120 days and end all combat by April 30, 2008 (with exceptions for counterterrorism and training). Bush may or may not be able to count on his Republican minions to back his increasingly destructive single-minded pursuit of a failed policy in Iraq, but the American people need to be sure that there are consequences for anyone who enables Bush.
The time for waiting is over. Action to end the war in Iraq must be taken now. Bush's addiction needs to be addressed. The worst thing to do to a junkie is give him money and help him get a fix. Bush needs to go cold turkey.
Monday, July 9, 2007
Steinbrenner and Cashman Can't Mortgage the Yankees' Future
With baseball entering into its three-day All-Star break, and the July 31 non-waiver trade deadline looming in the not-too-distant-future, the underachieving Yankees will be tempted to trade young players in exchange for a veteran or two to help them turn things around.
Owner George Steinbrenner didn't earn the nickname "The Boss" for his soft heart, so he will no doubt want to do something to remedy the Yankees' 42-43 season, as he has watched his team limp into the All-Star break below .500 for the first time since 1995. Meanwhile, the normally responsible general manager, Brian Cashman, will also be tempted to try and salvage this campaign, in light of the Boss's statement in May that Cashman is "on a big hook" for this year's results.
I would advise both Steinbrenner and Cashman to take a step back, look at the big picture, and avoid making any move to improve this year's team at the expense of the future.
I would start by telling Mr. Steinbrenner that despite the Yankees' off year, Cashman has done a great job since he took over primary control of baseball operations after the 2005 season. His work should not be measured solely by the 2007 win-loss record, but rather by the state of the organization. An article in today's New York Times discussed the depth of pitching in the Yankees' minor league system, especially at the Trenton Thunder, the team's AA-level affiliate. Thunder pitchers are blowing away their opponents, maintaining a staff E.R.A. of 2.57. Throw in super phenom Phil Hughes (currently on the disabled list with the big club) and AAA prospects Chase Wright, Matt DeSalvo and Tyler Clippard (all of whom have pitched in the majors this season and showed, at times, major league ability), and the Yankees have tremendous pitching depth in their minor league system.
Young pitching is about the most important asset a team can have. Whether you decide to ride those pitchers to success, as the Tigers did last season, or use them to acquire needed assets by trade, nothing demonstrates the health of an organization more than the quality of its young arms.
Cashman is the man directly responsible for building the Yankees' kiddie pitching corps. As the Times article points out, in 2004, the Yankees ranked 27th (out of 30 teams) for minor league talent. By the start of this season, that rank was up to seventh, which is especially impressive when you factor in that the Yankees still have one of the weakest crop of minor league position players in the league. Cashman built up the young pitching through the draft (14 of the first 18 Yankee draft picks in 2006 were pitchers), while at the same time adding depth by acquiring decent minor league hurlers in deals for Jaret Wright, Gary Sheffield and Randy Johnson, three players he was happy to excise from the roster, anyway.
In fact, Cashman's focus on young pitching has been part of a bigger strategy in changing the way the Yankees do business. Or, more accurately, going back to doing business the way they did when the club was successful. In the 1990s, the Yankees constructed a roster (much of it when Steinbrenner was suspended from baseball and general manager Gene Michael had free reign to make player deals) made up of gritty players who were more concerned with winning than putting up big numbers. On-base percentage and mental make-up were given more priority than home runs. Free agents were thought of as supplements to a strong core, not the center of the strategy. (Michael was practicing "Moneyball" before it had a name.) That approach brought the Yankees four World Series titles in five years, from 1996 to 2000. Those teams did not have major, high-priced free agents. They never had a guy in the top five in the league in home runs or runs batted in, nor did any Yankee win the Most Valuable Player award during that time. But, those teams had players that played the right way, and knew what it took to win tough games.
After the Yankees lost the 2001 World Series in seven games with a team batting average hovering around the .200 mark, the organization panicked and shifted strategy, signing the slugger Jason Giambi the next off-season to a seven-year, $120 million deal. That was the literal and symbolic end to the Yankees' dynasty. The emphasis shifted from fundamental baseball players to putting together a fantasy baseball-type roster filled with high-priced superstars. They have not won another title since.
The 2000s Yankees were built for the regular season, with big sluggers like Giambi, Sheffield and Alex Rodriguez, who feasted on bad pitching all season, allowing the Yankees to outslug lesser opponents, but who were limited by good pitching in the post-season, leaving the Yankees with no other way to manufacture runs. That's how the team bowed out in the first round in 2002, 2005 and 2006. In the 1990s, players like Paul O'Neill, Tino Martinez, Scott Brosius and Bernie Williams were able to manufacture runs by putting together tough at-bats against good pitching, drawing walks, moving runners, and hitting in the clutch.
The lesson that should have been drawn from the 2001 World Series wasn't that the Yanks batted .200, but that they were three outs from winning the series despite batting .200. The player they missed in 2001 wasn't a slugger, it was relief pitcher Jeff Nelson, who they let go as a free agent before the season. Without Nelson, Mariano Rivera was pressed into Game 7 in the eighth inning. You can make an argument that if Rivera was fresh for the ninth inning, he would have held the lead.
Cashman, who has been with the Yankees his whole adult life and took over as general manager in 1998, understands the difference between the 1990s teams and the 2000s teams. Until 2004, he had to work in a labyrinthine, sniping, competitive Yankee front office where he wielded limited power. When he wrested control (subject only to the Boss, of course) after the 2005 season, he put his vision of a successful Yankees team into action. Only, he was stuck with an aging, inflexible, overpaid and undermotivated roster, with so many long-term, untradable deals, there was very little he could do. So, he bided his time, avoided extending deals (Sheffield), and unloaded current contracts when he could (Sheffield, Wright and Johnson).
It was a process intended to get the team younger, and to move from a roster of high-priced superstars to a group of players who knew how to win. While that process has led to the Yankees being 42-43, it has also left the club with a wealth of young pitching and no guaranteed contracts past the 2008 season, except for Derek Jeter, Johnny Damon, Hideki Matsui, Alex Rodriguez (though he can opt out this winter) and Kei Igawa (okay, Cashman is not perfect ...). Or, put another way, Cashman has put the team in a place where it has the resources, both financially and in manpower, to build the right kind of team, one that can contend for a title.
Which brings us to this year's dilemma. It is hard to ask Steinbrenner, who is aging and, reportedly, in deteriorating health, to look at 2007 as a necessary step in a productive process, and to be patient that things will be better in 2008 and beyond. But, that is what he has to do.
The 2007 Yankees have several hitters that are not "playing to the backs of their baseball cards," as YES announcer Michael Kay likes to say. There is no doubt that if Johnny Damon, Bobby Abreu and Robinson Cano were having years commensurate with their lifetime numbers, the Yankees would be contending for the American League East lead right now. But, as currently constructed, there is no evidence that the team would do any better in the post-season than it has the last few years. The weekend Angels-Yankees series illustrates this point well.
On Friday and Sunday, the Yankees slugged their way to victory, putting up 14 runs in the opener (started for the Angels by an injured and diminished Bartolo Colon) and 12 more tallies in third game (when struggling righthander Ervin Santana got the ball, taking a 1-7 road record into the contest). But, on Saturday, when the Angels went with one of the best starters in the league, John Lackey, and later brought in two of the best relievers around, Scot Shields and Francisco Rodriguez, the Yankees managed one run in 13 innings.
More importantly was how the Yankees scored (and didn't score). On Sunday, nine of the team's first ten runs came on three three-run homers off of Santana. As Paul O'Neill says often on YES broadcasts, once the playoffs roll around, you don't see nearly as many home runs, because the pitching is so much better, so you need to be able to manufacture runs to win. Saturday's 2-1 affair was more like playoff baseball, and the Angels were able to play "ABC ball" and execute against good pitching better than the Yankees could. In the third inning, trailing 1-0, the Angels got a lead-off double by Garret Anderson. Knowing runs would be at a premium, the next batters didn't try to do too much, with Howie Kendrick grounding out to first (moving Anderson to third) and Jeff Mathis grounding out to third to score the tying run.
Contrast this display of fundamental baseball to the three times the Yankees managed to get in similar situations. In the second inning, Hideki Matsui led off with a double, but Jorge Posada could not get him over to third, going down on strikes. Luckily for the Yankees, Bobby Abreu bailed out Posada by doubling in Matsui, but the Yankees would not be so fortunate later in the game, nor would they score again that day. In the seventh inning, Posada led off with a double, but, again, the Yankees couldn't move him along, with Abreu and Cano striking out, and Posada then getting picked off to end the inning. Finally, in the bottom of the 13th inning, with the Angels up 2-1 and one out, Miguel Cairo singled, stole second, and went to third on a passed ball. A fly ball would have tied the game, but after a Damon walk, Melky Cabrera struck out. Derek Jeter than grounded out to end the game. Faced with the good pitching, the Yankees couldn't find alternate ways to score.
And, by the way, how did the Angels get their run in the top of the 13th? Not surprisingly, they went the ABC route. Kendrick doubled to lead off the inning, and Jose Molina, after failing twice to get a bunt down, muscled a grounder to first to move Kendrick to third (he scored on the play after Cairo made an error). Saturday's game, a playoff-like matchup between Lackey and Roger Clemens, turned on which team could make the smart plays to squeeze out a run or two. It was the kind of games the Yankees teams of the 1990s won. But, with a strong pitcher on the mound, the Yankees were helpless. Maybe that's why they're a woeful 6-14 in 2007 in games decided by one run. Adding Mark Teixeira to the lineup or Eric Gagne to the bullpen would help a bit, but neither move would change the nature of the team.
Cashman made a statement last week that the 2007 Yankees, based on how they have played so far, have not earned the right to a mid-season trade (like the 2006 deal for Abreu). Rather, he said, this group has to show it has what it takes to be winners. He is absolutely correct, as the Angels series showed. Let's just hope that Cashman doesn't change his tune to pacify Steinbrenner, or worse, Steinbrenner doesn't overrule Cashman and make a deal that will damage the carefully laid foundation Cashman has built for future Yankee success. As hard as it is to believe, what the pitchers do at Trenton for the rest of this year is probably more important than what any player does during that time in the Bronx. Hopefully, Steinbrenner appreciates what his team has, rather than what it does not.
I have not given up on 2007. I think the starting pitching has been pretty good, the relievers have been better lately, and the lineup has the potential to score runs when not facing elite pitchers. To me, the 2007 Yankees still look like a team that can do some damage in the regular season. And, I will be hoping that after the break, they string together some winning streaks to put them back into the division and wild card races. But I will be hoping even more that the team doesn't trade any of its key young arms for a one-year rental or, worse, a bad contract that will burden the team for years to come. While I would like to see success in 2007, I am more optimistic about 2008 and beyond. At least I am today. George Steinbrenner is the only man who knows if I'll be as optimistic when the trade deadline passes on July 31.
Owner George Steinbrenner didn't earn the nickname "The Boss" for his soft heart, so he will no doubt want to do something to remedy the Yankees' 42-43 season, as he has watched his team limp into the All-Star break below .500 for the first time since 1995. Meanwhile, the normally responsible general manager, Brian Cashman, will also be tempted to try and salvage this campaign, in light of the Boss's statement in May that Cashman is "on a big hook" for this year's results.
I would advise both Steinbrenner and Cashman to take a step back, look at the big picture, and avoid making any move to improve this year's team at the expense of the future.
I would start by telling Mr. Steinbrenner that despite the Yankees' off year, Cashman has done a great job since he took over primary control of baseball operations after the 2005 season. His work should not be measured solely by the 2007 win-loss record, but rather by the state of the organization. An article in today's New York Times discussed the depth of pitching in the Yankees' minor league system, especially at the Trenton Thunder, the team's AA-level affiliate. Thunder pitchers are blowing away their opponents, maintaining a staff E.R.A. of 2.57. Throw in super phenom Phil Hughes (currently on the disabled list with the big club) and AAA prospects Chase Wright, Matt DeSalvo and Tyler Clippard (all of whom have pitched in the majors this season and showed, at times, major league ability), and the Yankees have tremendous pitching depth in their minor league system.
Young pitching is about the most important asset a team can have. Whether you decide to ride those pitchers to success, as the Tigers did last season, or use them to acquire needed assets by trade, nothing demonstrates the health of an organization more than the quality of its young arms.
Cashman is the man directly responsible for building the Yankees' kiddie pitching corps. As the Times article points out, in 2004, the Yankees ranked 27th (out of 30 teams) for minor league talent. By the start of this season, that rank was up to seventh, which is especially impressive when you factor in that the Yankees still have one of the weakest crop of minor league position players in the league. Cashman built up the young pitching through the draft (14 of the first 18 Yankee draft picks in 2006 were pitchers), while at the same time adding depth by acquiring decent minor league hurlers in deals for Jaret Wright, Gary Sheffield and Randy Johnson, three players he was happy to excise from the roster, anyway.
In fact, Cashman's focus on young pitching has been part of a bigger strategy in changing the way the Yankees do business. Or, more accurately, going back to doing business the way they did when the club was successful. In the 1990s, the Yankees constructed a roster (much of it when Steinbrenner was suspended from baseball and general manager Gene Michael had free reign to make player deals) made up of gritty players who were more concerned with winning than putting up big numbers. On-base percentage and mental make-up were given more priority than home runs. Free agents were thought of as supplements to a strong core, not the center of the strategy. (Michael was practicing "Moneyball" before it had a name.) That approach brought the Yankees four World Series titles in five years, from 1996 to 2000. Those teams did not have major, high-priced free agents. They never had a guy in the top five in the league in home runs or runs batted in, nor did any Yankee win the Most Valuable Player award during that time. But, those teams had players that played the right way, and knew what it took to win tough games.
After the Yankees lost the 2001 World Series in seven games with a team batting average hovering around the .200 mark, the organization panicked and shifted strategy, signing the slugger Jason Giambi the next off-season to a seven-year, $120 million deal. That was the literal and symbolic end to the Yankees' dynasty. The emphasis shifted from fundamental baseball players to putting together a fantasy baseball-type roster filled with high-priced superstars. They have not won another title since.
The 2000s Yankees were built for the regular season, with big sluggers like Giambi, Sheffield and Alex Rodriguez, who feasted on bad pitching all season, allowing the Yankees to outslug lesser opponents, but who were limited by good pitching in the post-season, leaving the Yankees with no other way to manufacture runs. That's how the team bowed out in the first round in 2002, 2005 and 2006. In the 1990s, players like Paul O'Neill, Tino Martinez, Scott Brosius and Bernie Williams were able to manufacture runs by putting together tough at-bats against good pitching, drawing walks, moving runners, and hitting in the clutch.
The lesson that should have been drawn from the 2001 World Series wasn't that the Yanks batted .200, but that they were three outs from winning the series despite batting .200. The player they missed in 2001 wasn't a slugger, it was relief pitcher Jeff Nelson, who they let go as a free agent before the season. Without Nelson, Mariano Rivera was pressed into Game 7 in the eighth inning. You can make an argument that if Rivera was fresh for the ninth inning, he would have held the lead.
Cashman, who has been with the Yankees his whole adult life and took over as general manager in 1998, understands the difference between the 1990s teams and the 2000s teams. Until 2004, he had to work in a labyrinthine, sniping, competitive Yankee front office where he wielded limited power. When he wrested control (subject only to the Boss, of course) after the 2005 season, he put his vision of a successful Yankees team into action. Only, he was stuck with an aging, inflexible, overpaid and undermotivated roster, with so many long-term, untradable deals, there was very little he could do. So, he bided his time, avoided extending deals (Sheffield), and unloaded current contracts when he could (Sheffield, Wright and Johnson).
It was a process intended to get the team younger, and to move from a roster of high-priced superstars to a group of players who knew how to win. While that process has led to the Yankees being 42-43, it has also left the club with a wealth of young pitching and no guaranteed contracts past the 2008 season, except for Derek Jeter, Johnny Damon, Hideki Matsui, Alex Rodriguez (though he can opt out this winter) and Kei Igawa (okay, Cashman is not perfect ...). Or, put another way, Cashman has put the team in a place where it has the resources, both financially and in manpower, to build the right kind of team, one that can contend for a title.
Which brings us to this year's dilemma. It is hard to ask Steinbrenner, who is aging and, reportedly, in deteriorating health, to look at 2007 as a necessary step in a productive process, and to be patient that things will be better in 2008 and beyond. But, that is what he has to do.
The 2007 Yankees have several hitters that are not "playing to the backs of their baseball cards," as YES announcer Michael Kay likes to say. There is no doubt that if Johnny Damon, Bobby Abreu and Robinson Cano were having years commensurate with their lifetime numbers, the Yankees would be contending for the American League East lead right now. But, as currently constructed, there is no evidence that the team would do any better in the post-season than it has the last few years. The weekend Angels-Yankees series illustrates this point well.
On Friday and Sunday, the Yankees slugged their way to victory, putting up 14 runs in the opener (started for the Angels by an injured and diminished Bartolo Colon) and 12 more tallies in third game (when struggling righthander Ervin Santana got the ball, taking a 1-7 road record into the contest). But, on Saturday, when the Angels went with one of the best starters in the league, John Lackey, and later brought in two of the best relievers around, Scot Shields and Francisco Rodriguez, the Yankees managed one run in 13 innings.
More importantly was how the Yankees scored (and didn't score). On Sunday, nine of the team's first ten runs came on three three-run homers off of Santana. As Paul O'Neill says often on YES broadcasts, once the playoffs roll around, you don't see nearly as many home runs, because the pitching is so much better, so you need to be able to manufacture runs to win. Saturday's 2-1 affair was more like playoff baseball, and the Angels were able to play "ABC ball" and execute against good pitching better than the Yankees could. In the third inning, trailing 1-0, the Angels got a lead-off double by Garret Anderson. Knowing runs would be at a premium, the next batters didn't try to do too much, with Howie Kendrick grounding out to first (moving Anderson to third) and Jeff Mathis grounding out to third to score the tying run.
Contrast this display of fundamental baseball to the three times the Yankees managed to get in similar situations. In the second inning, Hideki Matsui led off with a double, but Jorge Posada could not get him over to third, going down on strikes. Luckily for the Yankees, Bobby Abreu bailed out Posada by doubling in Matsui, but the Yankees would not be so fortunate later in the game, nor would they score again that day. In the seventh inning, Posada led off with a double, but, again, the Yankees couldn't move him along, with Abreu and Cano striking out, and Posada then getting picked off to end the inning. Finally, in the bottom of the 13th inning, with the Angels up 2-1 and one out, Miguel Cairo singled, stole second, and went to third on a passed ball. A fly ball would have tied the game, but after a Damon walk, Melky Cabrera struck out. Derek Jeter than grounded out to end the game. Faced with the good pitching, the Yankees couldn't find alternate ways to score.
And, by the way, how did the Angels get their run in the top of the 13th? Not surprisingly, they went the ABC route. Kendrick doubled to lead off the inning, and Jose Molina, after failing twice to get a bunt down, muscled a grounder to first to move Kendrick to third (he scored on the play after Cairo made an error). Saturday's game, a playoff-like matchup between Lackey and Roger Clemens, turned on which team could make the smart plays to squeeze out a run or two. It was the kind of games the Yankees teams of the 1990s won. But, with a strong pitcher on the mound, the Yankees were helpless. Maybe that's why they're a woeful 6-14 in 2007 in games decided by one run. Adding Mark Teixeira to the lineup or Eric Gagne to the bullpen would help a bit, but neither move would change the nature of the team.
Cashman made a statement last week that the 2007 Yankees, based on how they have played so far, have not earned the right to a mid-season trade (like the 2006 deal for Abreu). Rather, he said, this group has to show it has what it takes to be winners. He is absolutely correct, as the Angels series showed. Let's just hope that Cashman doesn't change his tune to pacify Steinbrenner, or worse, Steinbrenner doesn't overrule Cashman and make a deal that will damage the carefully laid foundation Cashman has built for future Yankee success. As hard as it is to believe, what the pitchers do at Trenton for the rest of this year is probably more important than what any player does during that time in the Bronx. Hopefully, Steinbrenner appreciates what his team has, rather than what it does not.
I have not given up on 2007. I think the starting pitching has been pretty good, the relievers have been better lately, and the lineup has the potential to score runs when not facing elite pitchers. To me, the 2007 Yankees still look like a team that can do some damage in the regular season. And, I will be hoping that after the break, they string together some winning streaks to put them back into the division and wild card races. But I will be hoping even more that the team doesn't trade any of its key young arms for a one-year rental or, worse, a bad contract that will burden the team for years to come. While I would like to see success in 2007, I am more optimistic about 2008 and beyond. At least I am today. George Steinbrenner is the only man who knows if I'll be as optimistic when the trade deadline passes on July 31.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
