yankees can be proud of their accomplishments but this is the 2nd year the yanks end on a losing note. Could it be from underachieving? Could this be the last year we see them in the playoffs for awhile? It sure seems like it. Could it just be the yankees just turned out to be overrated pretenders? I have a feeling Boston will take their place representing the AL East next year.

I guess one can make an argument that not winning a World Series two years straight is underachieving. But the Yankees have gone for a period of over ten years of not making the playoffs or winning the World Series in the past, so it could happen now, we'll see. Maybe next year will be the Red Sox year in the AL East. I never bought the Babe Ruth jinx stuff, but the Red Sox are the ones who have to put that stuff behind them and not falter in the second half of the season or the playoffs. Best wishes to the Red Sox and Mariners next season.

Oh the rantings of these bitter, bitter Mariners fans! Yeah all evidence certainly points to a Yankees' collapse. They only had the most wins in the AL and play in a division with the Orioles and Devil Rays. The Blue Jays are suppossed to be improved, but the Red Sox will always be the Red Sox. Plus, aren't Glavine and Maddux both free agents? Braves will only keep one, Steinbrenner will get the other. I'm not a true blue Yankee fan, but there's no reason to think they are done quite yet.

what george said!

as a devoted mets fan, am certainly ecstatic with the recent turn of events. yeah, schmankees aren't done yet, but am sure as heck the dynasty is pretty over.

GO ANGELS!

GO A'S!

GO GIANTS!

gp43: funny!

Maybe this is a trend that should continue in New York.

2001: Yankees lose World Series to D'backs
2002: Yankees lose ALDS to Angels
2003: Yankees lose division to Boston, pay $60 million in luxury tax + revenue sharing
2004: Toronto and Baltimore pass Yankees in standings

Curse of the Bambino?

[quote]Originally posted by tzeile29:
what george said!

as a devoted mets fan, am certainly ecstatic with the recent turn of events

---

I probably shouldn't gloat too much until after today's A's/Twins Game 5 (hope the Twins like it hot, it's gonna be 90 degrees in Oakland), but the fate of the Yanks gave a us all a BIG boost here yesterday, especially with Giambi on the cover of ESPN Mag, justifying why he moved to NY and whining about how the A's treated his brother Jeremy. Now he can spend the winter sulking and getting a few more tattoos. Bet ABC/ESPN was sorry those Giambi deodorant ads were scheduled during every other break in last nite's Cards/D'backs game.

The Yankees really need starting pitching. Clemens and Wells are at the termini of their careers, Mussina has been inconsistent since mid-season, and Hitchcock, Hernandez and Weaver are no better than 3-5 pitchers over the span of a season at this point.

The Yankees should trade Hernandez and Weaver for one more quality starter, purchase that star Cuban defector outright, and work with Mussina on his mechanics. Mendoza could conceivably step in as a no. 4 starter, and the Yankees' bullpen isn't that awful, so a little tinkering would be fine.

With a nucleus the likes of Jeter, Soriano, Williams, Giambi, and Posada, they will remain very competitive. Pitching is where they need younger pitchers with talent AND stamina.

I'd look for the Yankees to continue at the top of the standings for awhile. Soriano, Jeter and Posada (all home-grown talent, BTW) give them a solid nucleus up the middle for quite a few years yet. Williams and Giambi had excellent years, they have young guys like Nick Johnson and Juan Rivera ready to step in at first base and rightfield, respectively, and the minors are full with guys like Drew Henson ready to replace older guys like Ventura at thirsbase. The question marks are leftfield (there hasn't been a good, everyday leftfielder all through these past few great years) and the starting pitching. I would expect Clemens to not be resigned (his age caught up to him very quickly in the second half) and El Duque to be traded (he's a total headcase). Jeff Weaver, at twentyfive, has the stuff to be a dominating number one, but he needs to start regularly every fifth day, and I think next year he will. Brandon Knight is in the minors and seems ready for his closeup, so he'd be a good fifth starter. That leaves Wells, who had a very good year despite being thirtnine and having a bad back, but Jay Tessmer and Randy Choate are legitimate prospects in the minors, or a free agent like Glavine or Maddux. Pettitte and Mussina are both very solid (although Mussina was annoyingly inconsistent this year). So I think the Good Guys are going to be contending long enough to keep the fans of lesser-performing teams blaming them for their own teams shortcomings.

Go Cardinals! Go Tino!

[ October 06, 2002: Message edited by: Munson Man ]

[quote]Originally posted by Munson Man:
lesser-performing teams blaming them for their own teams shortcomings.

---

You mean like not having Cable and advertising money handed to them like the Yanks ?

Dunno, guys. I come at this from my perspective as a performer in some ways. The Yanks see a hole in their team and they plug it -- No matter how much it costs, no matter who gets shafted in the process. And that works sometimes. They've got an astonishing collection of individual talent. But in the theatre, sometimes you can have a great script, a terrific director, an incredible cast, a beautiful production, all the elements in place, and the whole thing is a complete snooze -- just sits there like a big ol' cow pattie. What's missing is that spark that turns a cast into an ENSEMBLE, when the chemistry is electric & audiences get blown out of their seats. As stellar as the Yanks are individually, they are not a TEAM. And ya know somethin'? I'd rather see a group of guys truly playin' TOGETHER take it all than a group of talented individuals with an overinflated sense of entitlement. "They wanted it more." Yeah, that's right. And not just for themselves, but for one another. And (risking major league misinterpretation considering where I'm making these comments) it's really great to see the guys who love and strive walk all over the big boys once in a while (just wish it'd happen more often). Hopefully, the Yankees will continue to get pounded till they realize that they don't automatically belong in the Series just 'cause they're the Yankees. Till they become a team again.

being a huge yankee fan, although the Angels series was a disappointment, I left it not feeling as bad as last year against the D backs. I think when you win 103 games and have the best record in the league, have been in the playoffs 8 straight years and have one 4 world series, that to me is a continuing success story. I have to say I am thrilled the D backs are out and the continuing saga of the A's losing again, the Mariners not making it and the redsox..well being the redsox, just makes the yanks accomplishments that much more amazing. You all know they will be back again next year.

If only the Braves blow it tonite I will be happy with the teams left over. My heart will be with Tino and the cards to go all the way.

Great post Patterson....I think the importance of "team chemistry" and unselfish play is more crucial now than ever before to a team's success....just look at the success of the Patriots, Angels and Twins within the past ten months -- they don't rely on one "superstar" to carry the team every night (which often results in resentment among his teammates due to the exorbitant salary and preferential treatment that the "star" receives -- i.e., Barry Bonds)....the "Sports Guy" on espn.com (Bill Simmons) refers to this frequently in his columns as the "Ewing Theory" and his cited numerous examples where it holds true....I say let George continue to attempt to buy all the championships in the Bronx he wants by paying outlandish salaries for a roster full of "all-stars" but he will continue to find that philosophy doesn't work anymore, much to his chagrin -- I believe the Yanks total number of World Championships will remain at 26 for quite a few more years to come (just don't blame the classy Joe Torre for the ills of the "boss").

i think the "chemistry" angle is way overrated. particularly in baseball.

the yankees pitching just wasn't good enough. plus, a .611 team beating a .640 team in a five game series is not a real huge upset probability-wise.

[quote]Originally posted by patterson:
What's missing is that spark that turns a cast into an ENSEMBLE, when the chemistry is electric & audiences get blown out of their seats. As stellar as the Yanks are individually, they are not a TEAM. And ya know somethin'? I'd rather see a group of guys truly playin' TOGETHER take it all than a group of talented individuals with an overinflated sense of entitlement. "They wanted it more." Yeah, that's right. And not just for themselves, but for one another. And (risking major league misinterpretation considering where I'm making these comments) it's really great to see the guys who love and strive walk all over the big boys once in a while (just wish it'd happen more often). Hopefully, the Yankees will continue to get pounded till they realize that they don't automatically belong in the Series just 'cause they're the Yankees. Till they become a team again.

---

I don't think team chemistry was the problem with the Yankees. Their pitching just got smacked around against the Angels.

While I believe in team chemistry to a degree, giving up 8 runs per game doesn't have anything to do with chemistry, or lack thereof. They just got rocked by a team on a roll.

Team ERA was 8.21 for the series. Clemens 6.35, Mussina 9.00, Pettitte 12.00 and Wells 15.43.

[ October 07, 2002: Message edited by: George_vikingfan ]

But Joe, how could this happen??? It's the best pitching staff money could buy!! Shouldn't that be enough to guarantee a winning season?

Sure chemistry alone doesn't win ballgames. But for a long time the Yankees seem to have felt (perhaps justifiably) that all they had to do was show up and all that individual, purchased talent would assure victory. But ya know, sometimes just having the talent isn't enough. Sometimes you have to really want it too, want it enough to go out and earn it rather than just expecting it's gonna come to you as a matter of course. But then I'm the kind of guy who'd rather go see High School football games rather than pro -- heart matters far more to me than talent. Guess it's all in what you're after when you watch. There can be a lot of pleasure in watching a well-honed machine do it's job, but after a while it gets pretty dull. So for me it's been great the last couple post-seasons to see "teams" full of pluggers & scrappers throwin' spanners into the Yankees' works. And, yeah, I think the chemistry on those teams had a lot to do with it.

Wow talk about bitter! Check out this link to Yankee Haters Top 10 Moments.

Yep. Look under "bitter ol' queen" in the dictionary and there's my snapshot!

faydman - I believe chemistry can make the difference and contribute to taking a team to greater heights.

I think if you read between the lines of some of the quotes from Joe Torre over the past week and add them all together, it seems one could surmise he could be referring to chemistry.
I am paraphrasing these quotes from what I remember reading in the papers:
"We missed Paul O'Neil's fire and passion. I think he would have been a great presence in the dugout while we played the Angels" - Torre made this reference soon after their Game 4 loss.
"When I look at this Angel team, it reminds of me my 1996 Yankee team. That team had less talent than what we have on this year's squad but they had a great knack for winning doing the little things" - Torre made references to the Angel style of play and how it reminded him of his first championship team in a very fond way.

[quote]Originally posted by patterson:
Yep. Look under "bitter ol' queen" in the dictionary and there's my snapshot!

---

Oh Patterson I wasn't calling you bitter. I was referring to the link I provided to the Yankee Hater moments. Sorry for the confusion.

Sorry, George, but the label still applies. LOL.

Well who am I to argue if the kettle wants to call itself black!

[quote]Originally posted by patterson:
But Joe, how could this happen??? It's the best pitching staff money could buy!! Shouldn't that be enough to guarantee a winning season?

Sure chemistry alone doesn't win ballgames. But for a long time the Yankees seem to have felt (perhaps justifiably) that all they had to do was show up and all that individual, purchased talent would assure victory. But ya know, sometimes just having the talent isn't enough. Sometimes you have to really want it too, want it enough to go out and earn it rather than just expecting it's gonna come to you as a matter of course. But then I'm the kind of guy who'd rather go see High School football games rather than pro -- heart matters far more to me than talent. Guess it's all in what you're after when you watch. There can be a lot of pleasure in watching a well-honed machine do it's job, but after a while it gets pretty dull. So for me it's been great the last couple post-seasons to see "teams" full of pluggers & scrappers throwin' spanners into the Yankees' works. And, yeah, I think the chemistry on those teams had a lot to do with it.

---

Sure, on paper the Yankee pitchers should've dominated. The fact that they GOT dominated is why they play the games. On paper the A's should've creamed the Twinks. But they didn't. Yet I think most of us will agree that the A's have great team chemistry; the fact they lost doesn't change that. The Giants, on paper, shouldn't even be contending versus the Braves pitching staff. After all, with the Baker-Magowan sniping in the press, and the Bonds-Kent scuffles they have pretty bad chemistry. Yet they may very well send the Braves packing tonight. Chemistry is sometimes a factor, but I think it's being a bit oversold here; the reasons for the Angel victory are tangible and easily identifiable.

As for arrogance, I think a lot of what you refer to is pretty subjective; what you feel is arrogance can also be seen as self-confidence by a team that usually does get the job done. Nothing wrong with that. I get the sense that ultimately you're just happy another team will get the opportunity to win the Series. Nothing wrong with that, either.

[quote]Originally posted by Munson Man:


Sure, on paper the Yankee pitchers should've dominated. The fact that they GOT dominated is why they play the games. On paper the A's should've creamed the Twinks. But they didn't. Yet I think most of us will agree that the A's have great team chemistry; the fact they lost doesn't change that. The Giants, on paper, shouldn't even be contending versus the Braves pitching staff. After all, with the Baker-Magowan sniping in the press, and the Bonds-Kent scuffles they have pretty bad chemistry. Yet they may very well send the Braves packing tonight. Chemistry is sometimes a factor, but I think it's being a bit oversold here; the reasons for the Angel victory are tangible and easily identifiable.

---

But if, on paper, the Yankees should have dominated, what would you identify as the "tangible and easily indentifiable" reasons that the Angels wound up on top (and pretty decidedly)? Just dumb luck? Why were they so successful in dismantling the machine? Why did this, on paper, seemingly invincible juggernaut fall apart? David Wells made a comment yesterday to the effect that "George will figure something out. He always does." Sorry, but George wasn't even in the stadium to see them lose. George wasn't on the field. If your players are looking to the front office to do all their "winning" for them, something's wrong. Nobody's saying the Angels (or the Twins) won this on heart alone. Hey, talent trumps heart 9 times out of 10. But I sure think a tangible lack of heart to go along with their talent had a lot to do with the Yanks goin' home early this year.

>>>But if, on paper, the Yankees should have dominated, what would you identify as the "tangible and easily indentifiable" reasons that the Angels wound up on top (and pretty decidedly)?<<<

Reread, patterson. I think several of us have already answered that question - the Angel hitters hit markedly better than the Yankee pitchers pitched. Think we're going in a loop here......

Oh, they won because they scored more runs? Silly me. Naw, what I'm after is why, in three games in a row, the Angels were able to systematically disarm what should have been an unbeatable pitching staff? Seems like more than just luck (or the rally monkey) to me. What did the Yankees lack (or the Angels have) that made this possible?

Young arms, perhaps? Middle relief that really wasn't that good?

Just trying to break the discussion logjam here!

[quote]Originally posted by patterson:
Oh, they won because they scored more runs? Silly me. Naw, what I'm after is why, in three games in a row, the Angels were able to systematically disarm what should have been an unbeatable pitching staff? Seems like more than just luck (or the rally monkey) to me. What did the Yankees lack (or the Angels have) that made this possible?

---

What kind of answer are you looking for here? The Yankees pitching sucked worse than the Angels pitching in this best of five series. Even the best teams ever have lost three games in a row. The Angels have a great team this year on par with the Yankees and simply outplayed them 3 out of 4 games, and definitely deserved to win and have a great shot of winning it all. But we are only talking about a best of five series here. Why does there have to be a grand design reason for this?

I dont think you can just blame the horrible pictching. Of course some blame goes to the starters and the relievers and closers, they all sucked. The yankees just seem to have so much of a mess on their hand. I think a lot of the blame should go to Jeter, he's going around doing magazine ads, and tv shows, just concentrating on being a pretty boy. Yes they seem to be a team falling apart. They still may be able to stay ahead of the D'rays next year and out of the cellar. It will be a tough rebuilding process though.

[quote]Originally posted by patterson:
Oh, they won because they scored more runs? Silly me. Naw, what I'm after is why, in three games in a row, the Angels were able to systematically disarm what should have been an unbeatable pitching staff? Seems like more than just luck (or the rally monkey) to me. What did the Yankees lack (or the Angels have) that made this possible?

---

I read today that the top 3 Yankee starters had a higher combined ERA this year than the top 3 starters on the hideous, crashed-and-burned Baltimore Orioles. (The point was also made that at least the Orioles starters are younger and might be able to improve.) So obviously they weren't unbeatable. During the season they were able to outhit their opponents enough to win the division. The playoffs were a different story.

[quote]Originally posted by gp43:
I think a lot of the blame should go to Jeter, he's going around doing magazine ads, and tv shows, just concentrating on being a pretty boy.

---

Perhaps you've been to too many Grateful Dead concerts with the NY Mets, gp43. Jeter was actually the best of the Yankee regulars. He played every inning, and led the team in batting eith a .500 average (8 for 16), with 2 walks, 2 homeruns and 3 RBIs. Lots of guys can be blamed for the Yankee loss, but Jeter's not one of them.

If there is an infielder to blame, it should be Alfonso Soriano. He hit .211, 1 HR, 2 RBI, 1 SB, 2 runs. Tough for a team to win when the leadoff hitter scores 2 runs in 4 games. And his defense was pretty bad, with balls going over and under him the whole series. But then again he's not a great defender, so he has to do something with the bat right? See above.

Poor postseason for a kid who will bounce back and have a good career. Hopefully he'll hit 40/40 next season, and be a great player for years to come. And hopefully he'll learn to play second base a lot better.

[ October 07, 2002: Message edited by: MSUBulldog ]

One of the Yanks' central weaknesses is that their 3 key offensive players -- Bernie, Soriano, Jeter -- all SUCK defensively (it's the toll of age in Williams' case)... The NYC press is hot on Soriano moving to the outfield.

It's great that Steinbrenner is going to totally screw up the team just because he can't accept that you can't guarantee a playoff victory with a 100+ win team! I smell a Steve Trout- caliber signing.

The difference between the Yanks' and Angels' regular season records really is negligible when you consider that the worst West team (Texas) was better than the 3 intradivisional weaklings NY got to feast on...

[quote]Originally posted by fantomas:
Hitchcock, Hernandez and Weaver are no better than 3-5 pitchers over the span of a season at this point... The Yankees should trade Hernandez and Weaver for one more quality starter...

---

Comparing Weaver to "DL" HITCHCOCK?!? Weaver and Mussina are the only Yankee starters I'd expect to see there in 2005... or maybe next year.

Can Steinbush really eat the $10.3 M Clemens is owed next year, and perhaps watch the Rocket stomp back to Fenway for a Last Hurrah?

[quote]Originally posted by Bill W:
Can Steinbush really eat the $10.3 M Clemens is owed next year, and perhaps watch the Rocket stomp back to Fenway for a Last Hurrah?[/QB]

---

Clemens back in a Red Sox uniform? ....Few things are certain in this world Bill but I will WALK from DC to Boston if Clemens pitches for the Red Sox again -- IMHO there is NO CHANCE of that ever happening for a multitude of reasons, not the least of which is the fact that the Rocket is now one of the most hated athletes in Boston (I know we have a few New England residents on this board -- feel free to correct me if I am wrong, guys).

While I don't expect Clemens back in the Bronx, my money would be that he signs with the Astros or Rangers to finish his career at home (not unlike Nolan Ryan, although at least Ryan had quite a bit more gas left in the tank when he signed with the Rangers, despite the Astros execs thinking otherwise).

[ October 08, 2002: Message edited by: gamecock ]

[quote]Not unlike Nolan Ryan, although at least Ryan had quite a bit more gas left in the tank when he signed with the Rangers, despite the Astros execs thinking otherwise

---

HA! What about when he left the Angels? He was virtually the only thing worthwhile about the franchise from 1973-1978. In their first pennant winning year of 1979, he didn't have that great of a year, went 16-14. When he tried to re-sign with the Angels, they did everything they could to alienate him. So he buggered off to Houston. Buzzie Bavasi has a special seat in hell due his one comment: "We just need to find two 8-7 pitchers". Um, they never DID find those two mythical personages.

f**king idiot. Every record he set in Texas, every one of his three subsequent no-hitters was like a stake through the heart.

>>>Comparing Weaver to "DL" HITCHCOCK?!? Weaver and Mussina are the only Yankee starters I'd expect to see there in 2005... or maybe next year.<<<

Agreed, although I would add Pettitte to that list.

>>>While I don't expect Clemens back in the Bronx, my money would be that he signs with the Astros or Rangers to finish his career at home (not unlike Nolan Ryan, although at least Ryan had quite a bit more gas left in the tank when he signed with the Rangers, despite the Astros execs thinking otherwise).<<<

That's my expectation, as well. Clemens started the year like a house afire, but age caught up to him in July and the difference was astounding. Power pitchers get old very quickly. I think one could state with almost mathematical certainty that Rocket will NOT wind up in Boston, given the shabby way he's been treated by the fans there.

It sounds like I'm in the minority here, but I think Clemens will be back next year. If he starts out strong again, then George, etal, will want to keep him here at least until his 300th win. Then when he starts to falter, I'm sure he'll be relegated to spot starting, other duties, or perhaps traded away.

I think a lot of people are overreacting to the Yank's loss here. Though the team age--particularly in the pitching staff--is a concern, they are not yet a team in decline. This was still the winningest Yankee team since 1998--and 162 games is a much better measure of how good a team is than five. The 2000 team that won the world series was much weaker.

The other thing is that it shouldn't have been viewed as such a huge upset--the only reason the Yanks were so heavily favored was their "mystique". The Angels won nearly as many games, despite playing all those games against Oakland and Seattle. Their pitching staff was better than the Yankees all year long--their bullpen is possibly the best in baseball and the rotation was solid. They really shouldn't have been viewed as tremendous underdogs.

As to Clemens--he's old, but he was still 13-6 (albeit with the support of the best offense in baseball) with an ERA slightly below the league average. I doubt the Yanks will be able to find a fifth starter who'll do better than that, so if they're going to be paying him anyway...he's still capable of helping a team. He just isn't an ace, and shouldn't have been expected to be.

They're not a perfect team. Bill W raises a good point about their defense. But there's no reason to panic.

[quote]Originally posted by JC:
I think a lot of people are overreacting to the Yank's loss here.

---

I couldnt disagree more. This is a panic situation now. They cant wait, its time to clean house. They'll take some losses at first but they got to start the rebuilding now.

I'm a (43 year) Yankee fan. I imagine that most of you haven't been around that long. Baseball needs the Yankees (winning). The Yankees stimulate interest, hate, love, jealousy--love 'em or hate 'em, like 'em or leave 'em.
I was at the Northwestern vs. Ohio State football game when the Yankee vs. Angels, game IV, score was announced to the crowd. It was, without a doubt, the largest roar of the evening.
I thought, what a compliment to an organization, that this many people hate them so.
The current Yankees are aging fast, particularly the pitching staff. I thought that given the age and injuries to their pitchers, the Yankees overachieved and had a great, great season. The Angels deserved to win--hats off to them. P

[quote]I thought, what a compliment to an organization, that this many people hate them so

---

Possibly. Or: people are bored to tears seeing them dominate by a combination of unmatched financial muscle, a weak division year after year and the ability to buy key players for the stretch run. Add to that the New York-based national media churning out mounds of copy about them while other players that have the misfortune of not playing in The Center of the Known Universe go unnoticed for the most part in the rush to hype the latest Yankee player (see: Torii Hunter and Garrett Anderson).

Mileage varies, of course.

There have been reports all week that the Yankees were going to try to cut payroll this offseason by trying to trade Jorge Posada. Yeah, and I've got a date with Doug Mientkiewicz tonight!

Anyway, now comes this bit of news that the Yanks have talked to the Rockies about Mike Hampton. I know this may be some kind of bargaining move by Hampton's agent, but I doubt it.

Now remember, hypocrite Hampton couldn't Escape From New York fast enough when he was a Met. He wanted to live somewhere he perceived to have better schools for his kids. I guess now his kids education isn't quite as important as it was. Or maybe its the fact that since he's gone to Colorado, he stinks like a Porto-Potty at a Chili and Beer Festival. Hypocrites all around! From ESPN.com:

[quote]Mike Hampton didn't enjoy his first stint in New York when he was a starter for the Mets.

Apparently, he might reconsider a move back to the Big Apple if he was wearing pinstripes.

Newsday reported Saturday that the Yankees and Colorado Rockies have held talks regarding a trade for Hampton, citing multiple baseball sources.

Even though the left-hander has a blanket no-trade clause in his contract, his agent said Hampton would waive it to join the Yanks.

"I think it's fair to say that the Yankees would certainly fit under Mike's qualifications of what he'd be looking for if he leaves Colorado," agent Mark Rodgers told Newsday. "He's looking for a team that, on an annual basis, does all it can to win."

Hampton, 30, has a 21-28 record and 5.75 ERA in his two season with the Rockies, but it hasn't been a great relationship since the starter left the Mets after the 2000 season to sign an eight-year, $121 million deal with Colorado.

According to the report, the Rockies have been trying to trade Hampton for over a year, but haven't come close since Colorado will need to pay a big part of the remaining $103.5 million of the pitcher's contract.

According to the Newsday report, the Mets, Astros and Rangers also have talked to Colorado about Hampton.

---