So now Posada and his big mouth has caused Girardi to have to go on the defensive. No need for this to be a story now. http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=4418533 "Yankees manager Joe Girardi sees no reason to split up batterymates A.J. Burnett and Jorge Posada despite some obvious miscommunication between the duo during a 14-1 loss to the Red Sox on Saturday. Burnett allowed nine hits and a career-high nine runs in five innings, dropping to 0-3 in his last five starts. "I don't have a lot of concerns about it,'' Girardi said. "We had a bad game and we move forward.'' "
Okay, well if killer instinct is something you can turn on and off or leave at the hotel one day out of three, it doesn't really do much for your argument about whether a team "has" it or not. When will you learn to stop quoting that rag as though it's The Word? The Yankees never announced what their proposed limit was. It didn't happen. People guessed at what it was, based on information available at the time. Other writers at the NY Post have guessed it was anywhere from 140 to 160 innings. Pete Abraham figured it would be between 150-160 innings. The NY Daily News estimated it to be around 160 innings. But go ahead and have your little crusade against... well... whatever it is you're crusading against with this nonsense.
What exactly is the problem with discussing the future rotation? Especially when the conversation was sparked by an article about Andy's future? YaY! The Yankees and Red Sox battled it out scoring 50+ runs in 12 hours of baseball this weekend! Hooray! Happy now?
It's been next year discussions for the past 4 years with the horrible way the team was put together. Finally when it seems like this team is assembled well enough to make a run at a title, people want to talk about next year's rotation? Instead of savouring the moment? Baffling.
The two need not be mutually exclusive. One of the fascinating things about (most) human beings is that they are capable of holding many different kinds of information and entertaining many different kinds of ideas concurrently. Or close enough to be concurrent as to make no difference. For example, I can brush my teeth while trying to think about what kind of phone I should buy. Or discuss next year's pitching rotation while enjoying this year's team.
That's one take. I took the discussion as an implication the 2009 rotation is fucked up -- i.e. I can't wait untit 2010 when the rotation is fixed, then we'll really win. Which, coming from Don seems like a rational conclusion for a poster to make.
Wait a second. Who isn't savoring the lead, or even the series win against Boston? At this point, the rest of the games are a grind the Yankees have to work through to get to October. It's practically elementary that the Yankees will be in the playoffs, and almost assuredly as not just the ALE champ, but also the top seed. So we can look forward to 5 additional 4-hour epics when the leaves start changing. In the meantime, while we wait, we'll discuss the Yankees rotation next year. Because it's a helluva lot more fun than talking about Mitre and Gaudin pitching once a week for the next month. BTW: I don't see those who are bitching discussing much about the current Yankees either.
That's assuming far too much from what was written. All that was being said was that Andy may come back next year. Nothing wrong with that, and based on the way he's pitched, there's no reason to not want him back (except his age.) I don't think anyone is saying that this rotation isn't good enough to win it all this year.
Really? Because we've been over this before, and you seem to prefer to ignore it. But okay... Here's one that calls it 160: Link Here's another from the same paper that acknowledges that the innings limit has not been disclosed: Link Here's one that says it is believed to be around 150: Link Here's one from the Post that says it is believed to be 140 to 160 for the regular season (and also tries to make a story out of nothing, as the Post is wont to do, and you are seemingly happy to accept): Link Here's one that uses 160: Link Here's Pete Abraham reporting on the innings limit (and saying 165 was close to his earlier prediction): Link Here's one from the New York Times saying it is "presumed to be" about 140 to 150 innings: Link So at the very least, it should be painfully clear that -- whatever the innings limit for Joba is/was -- it was not announced by the Yankees, so neither you nor the papers have no way of claiming that he did or did not have his innings limit changed.
You took it wrong. The original discussion developed because Pettitte wants to come back. If he does that could cause a situation where the Yankees have 6 quality starters to fit into 5 starting positions.
I didn't read them all but none of the ones I did read mention that the Yankees changed the plan from the beginning of the season until now. Even the one i posted said it is now 160 innings. If you want I am sure you can go back to April and find multiple sources that said at that time it was 140 innings.
Are you purposely missing the point? Of course they didn't mention that they changed the plan! That's the entire point! No one knows what the plan was! They didn't know it in April, and they don't know it know. (Or didn't until last week.) People took some educated guesses as to what it was, but no one, not the Post, not the NY Times, not the Daily News... no one knew what the innings cap for Joba was going to be. So no one can turn around and say, "See? They changed the plan!"
You don't know what the plan was and I don't know what the plan was. I read one thing and you read something else. I know I read multiple places before the season started that it was 140 innings. Maybe it was wrong but it certainly wasn't wrong because you say it was wrong or because you link to some story that says it is NOW 160 innings. I think you miss the point.
Here's one that says the Verducci rule would have him at 130 this year but the Yankees are willing to ignore it. http://riveraveblues.com/2009/08/trusting-the-yanks-joba-plan-15773/ Here is one from the other rag that says it was 140 this spring http://www.nypost.com/seven/08152009/sports/yankees/joba_gets_tabbed_for_tomorrow_184663.htm 142 http://www.rotoauthority.com/2009/01/joba-chamberlai.html 140-150 http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...yankees-victory-but-marlins-beat-mets-with-cg I could go on all day. Links are a dime a dozen.
Sigh. 1. You don't know what the plan was. 2. I don't know what the plan was. 3. The writers of the articles you are reading don't/didn't know what the plan was. All we had were educated guesses. You said (emphasis mine), "Oh, and I know you have your formula but the Yankees had Chamberlain slated for 140. You can come up with any reason you want why they went against their own plan." And then you quoted an article from the New York Post. The reason it is wrong for you to make the definitive claims above because there is no way for you to know that! The Post has claimed one thing. In fact, the Post has claimed multiple things. Other papers have claimed other innings limits. None of them have a quote from Girardi or Cashman saying, in April, "We're going to shut Joba down when he gets to 140 innings." Or 160 innings. Or anything. Because the Yankees never released that information. That's why there are conflicting reports. There was no public knowledge of a set limit. Therefore, because no one (including you) knew what the plan was, you cannot say that they went against said plan. Capice?
