Joe Sheehan with Jeff Erickson on XM
Joe is co-founder of Baseball Prospectus & he & Jeff discuss the Yankees system.
Joe made the kind of comment so many make for purposes like ingratiating themselves
with other groups, perhaps trying to seem 'with-it,' or on board with the rest of the
sports media, including any voting baseball writers. That is to state something utterly
untrue about the Yankees that furthers their image as pigs, obscenely rich, cruelly
superior to other teams, etc. Sheehan said: "Jeff Nelson would take 3 months off in the
summer simply because the Yankees were planning their playoff" schedule/bullpen or
roster.If someone wants to try the excuse he's just being funny, forget it. It's far
from funny. It's what I described, especially since I've read Joe considers himself
a Yankee fan. This kind of thing has gone on because Yankee fans have allowed themselves to be bullied. It's not right, it's got to stop. Real human beings are
harmed by the kind of pandering Sheehan attempted in his statement. And it keeps
people misinformed about the state of baseball today.
Tweet
Stumbleupon StumbleUpon
posted by susan at
1/25/2006 01:54:00 PM
6 Comments:
Joe Sheehan is so full of himself, he's twins.
By
Anonymous, at 2:24 PM
I'll defend Joe a little bit here.
I think what he's suggesting is that the Yankees have a little more margin for error, particularly over the course of a long regular season. Witness, for example, the Jon Lieber signing a few years back. They can afford to sign him and wait for him to get healthy, whereas a team like my Reds, for example, couldn't.
Joe is indeed a Yankee fan (from Inwood), and he didn't mean to imply that the Yankees could do something like sign Nelson with a longer view as a criticism, but as a point that they can be flexible.
By
Anonymous, at 5:35 PM
Thanks for your comment. What Sheehan
said was still false. The idea the
Yankees "can" and others "can't" is
also false. The "Yankees," whoever
that is, a group of people who originally bought them, Goldman Sachs
who took the risk of buying 40% of the
YES network, etc., choose to. Other
owners "can" but choose not to. The Jon Lieber example is well known, but not the only 1 of its kind on any team. I attended a Reds-Yankees spring training game at Legends Field last year, which the Reds won.
I was surrounded by swarms of cheering young Reds fans. I hope the
new owner appreciates them.
By
susan, at 8:17 PM
I'll buy that - you're absolutely right about "can" vs. "won't." It's a point that I've made in other contexts, and you're right to call that out.
At the same token, while the Yanks' ownership have *earned* their ability to be more aggressive, due in most part to their willingness to invest in their own product, I don't think you can argue that the fruits of their labor have now created a bit of safety net for future risks. It's not a perjorative - rather, a reflection of the current reality.
By
Anonymous, at 8:38 PM
Jeff, you're right, but the point about the current Yankee advantage is
beaten to death every hour of every day. It's not helpful. I thought it
might let up after rev. sharing & lux
tax, but the guys kept right at it.
It takes attention away from much more
important points like what are teams
doing with money they're getting, etc.
If something is repeated often enough,
it'll be accepted as truth. In the case of the Yankees, it becomes widely
accepted disgust & hatred. There's plenty I don't like about the Yankees. But too many people with influence enflame this disdain which
becomes hatred. I then get to the
subject of the voting members who
are subject to the barrage against
the Yankees. Which wouldn't matter
that much except for 1 thing. Many
of them have 1 overriding purpose in
life: to see that Mariano Rivera does not get the recognition he deserves. Thus ends my diatribe, as
this is the most important point, &
one I've documented on this blog &
in numerous files I've collected.
By
susan, at 2:48 AM
That all is true - for instance, the fact that at one point in time before they got their new ballpark, *Philly* was considered a small market team, only because they didn't invest in their product and thus were a small *revenue* team. We haven't even touched the nature of the individual owners (KC - WalMart, MIN - Pohlad) and their respective wealth, and the "inability to compete" label is such a canard.
When Joe made that comment, it wasn't to hammer the Yanks or cry out about an inequity. I know him really well, and trust me, that's not a club in his bag.
As for others, well, you might have a good point there; I'm not going to speak for their intentions.
Good discussion...
By
Anonymous, at 9:03 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home