The Dog Ate My World Series Ball

So that’s what happened to the 2007 World Series ball!

"My dog ate it," said Papelbon, who has a home in the Canebrake subdivision.

"He plays with baseballs like they are his toys. His name is Boss. He jumped up one day on the counter and snatched it. He likes rawhide. He tore that thing to pieces. Nobody knows that. I’ll keep what’s left of it."

Gotta love Paps.

83 comments… add one

  • If only we could coat Papelbon’s right arm in Rawhide…I kid of course.
    That is hysterical, good find Paul.

    John - YF December 19, 2007, 2:26 pm
  • Here’s hoping that’s the last WS ball that “Boss” ever sinks his teeth into!

    The Sheriff (Andrews) December 19, 2007, 4:01 pm
  • See now.. I understand why Yankee fans love Mariano. He fits their mentality with his quiet respect/professionalism/blah blah.
    But he’s also BORING!
    Come on! How can you not LOVE Paps? He’s hilarious! I’ll take him and his screaming and jigging and fist-pumping and ball-losing and crazy fun awesomeness anyday. Yay Paps!

    Dionysus December 19, 2007, 4:15 pm
  • Wow. Papelbon’s dog ate the 2007 WS ball?! That thing probably could have gotten a pretty penny on eBay.
    Personally, I believe this guy might have the ball.
    http://yanksfansoxfan.typepad.com/ysfs/2007/10/have-you-seen-m.html

    SoxFan December 19, 2007, 4:28 pm
  • So does this mean Sox fans aren’t allowed to be mad at Doug Mientkiewicz ever again, and have to retract any and all anger they’ve ever had towards him? At least he kept the ball safe.

    AndrewYF December 19, 2007, 5:56 pm
  • Were Sox fans angry at Mientkie? I never was. I thought he should do the right thing and turn the ball over, but I never really felt he was doing the wrong thing by keeping it.

    Paul SF December 19, 2007, 6:37 pm
  • Me either. But I do think Paps is a wild man. In a fun-to-watch-play-baseball-but-I’m-not-inviting-him-to-dinner-anytime-soon kind of way.

    soxgirl December 19, 2007, 6:50 pm
  • I agree with you, though, Andrews, that it’s funny how little publicity this has gotten compared to the ’04 mess. Obviously the 2004 ball had much more sentimentality attached to it, but yeah, at least Doug didn’t let his dog chew the ball up.

    Paul SF December 19, 2007, 6:53 pm
  • If Papelbon’s name was on that list or if he had said “I gave Boss some serious dog steroids and he just freaked on the ball” it may have gotten a little more traction in the papers.

    walein December 19, 2007, 6:55 pm
  • Ah ha ha! “I gave Boss some serious dog steroids”! That’s hilarious and yet somehow just the sort of thing I can easily imagine Papelbon saying.

    Devine December 19, 2007, 7:05 pm
  • I actually DONT think his dog chewed it up. I think Paps is jsut having fun with us.
    Also, Paps gets more leeway with us then Meintahafhnujxdbcs BECAUSE he’s Paps. I mean.. he’s nuts and that spart of his charm. His also OURS. A product of our farm, our absolutely filthy dominate closer, our personal ballpark comedian. He’s just.. special.
    And soxgirl, I’d have Paps over to dinner ina minute. Grab some beers, break out the scrabble.. I think it’d be a ball.

    Dionysus December 19, 2007, 7:51 pm
  • Dio – maybe… but I’d send the small kids to a neighbor’s house and hide the breakables.

    soxgirl December 19, 2007, 7:54 pm
  • Oh definatly.

    Dionysus December 19, 2007, 9:04 pm
  • By the way, I’m just starting a new blog.
    http://modernrooters.blogspot.com/
    Check it out if you’ve got some time and let me know if you’d want to exchange links.

    Ethan Michaels December 20, 2007, 2:46 am
  • See now.. I understand why Yankee fans love Mariano. He fits their mentality with his quiet respect/professionalism/blah blah.
    Actually, Yankees fans love Mariano because he kicks ass, doesn’t get rattled if he blows a save, and is probably more responsible for the Yankees having 4 World Championships in the last 11 years than any other Yankees player.
    I’ll take that kind of BORING any old day of the f***ing week.

    Jay-YF December 20, 2007, 9:53 am
  • Good job Mr. Papelbon. If we could just get the Hall of Fame to treat its baseball memorabilia like this. That crazy guy.

    DR December 20, 2007, 10:21 am
  • To change the subject…
    Did anyone see this quote from Hank in Newsday?
    “The decision is my decision,” Steinbrenner said. “It doesn’t matter one way or another what somebody … you have to take advice, but ultimately, the owner has to make a decision.”
    Does this mean that Cashman has been reduced to giver of advice? How do Yankee fans feel about this? Is it just a lot of hot air?
    Not trying to start a flame war, I’m actually interested.

    LocklandSF December 20, 2007, 1:38 pm
  • To be clear, this quote was in regard to the Santana decision.
    Also, I’m not passing judgment on Hank’s baseball operations skills, who knows, he could have a brilliant baseball mind, time will tell.
    The issue I see here is one of perception. How is Cashman supposed to do his job under these conditions? I realize that ownership in all teams technically has final say on everything, but the public manner that Hank is taking must undermine Cashman’s position in the eyes of other GMs to some degree.
    If I’m another GM, I’m going to politely tell Brian that I need to speak directly with Hank on urgent matters.

    LocklandSF December 20, 2007, 1:46 pm
  • Lockland, I think that’s a really valid question. There is definitely a warm gusty breeze and a liberal dash of posturing. Hank is stating his authority over Cashman, Hal, his Dad, and everyone else, laying out his “Buck Stops Here” placard on his desk. I don’t know that he is literally diminishing Cashman’s role; he certainly is not kicking him to the curb. However, it is awkward and plays to the egomaniacal statements made regarding the Yankees’ facilitation of Boston’s, Torre’s, and everyone else’s success by way of the Yankees’ very existence. Hank has said, and continues to say, “I’m the Big Dog now. RUFF!”
    My off-the-cuff reaction is that any supervisor of people or head of a company should not have to make such a grandiose declaration of their purview, and especially in this case, would separate their gifted corporate mandate to allow the people doing the actual heavy lifting in their fields of expertise their appropriate accolades and denigration as the results dictate, while taking their personal pride in profitability and success, knowing that they don’t know what the right person for each specific cog in the machine knows, but knowing who the right person is for each role while doing their job as a supervisor to remove obstacles to the success of each employee.
    The next logical procession is that if he is wiling to accept ultimate responsibility, he should be prepared to abdicate his mandate should his decisions that override his managers go horribly wrong. How likely is that?

    attackgerbil December 20, 2007, 2:12 pm
  • One of the things I’m most curious about regarding the 2008 season is how Hank handles adversity. If the Yankees are 5 games back after April, for example, how will Hank behave then? I don’t know, but I’m guessing from his pedigree, it won’t be pretty. I sure hope he doesn’t prove me wrong though, because it’s just too damn entertaining.

    LocklandSF December 20, 2007, 2:22 pm
  • Do you have a link to the story so we can see it in the full context it was made?

    Jay-YF December 20, 2007, 2:38 pm
  • LocklandSF December 20, 2007, 2:40 pm
  • Uh, how about putting it in the proper context?:
    “It’s my decision for a trade that requires $140 million as a consequence.”

    Mike YF December 20, 2007, 2:43 pm
  • Meanwhile, people continue to parse Hank’s statements as if they were coming from the Pope via God himself.
    Forgive me, But I like to interpret behaviors when the appropriate time comes.
    If they trade for Santana, he ain’t so different from his Dad after all.
    If they don’t, he’s very different from his Dad.

    Mike YF December 20, 2007, 2:46 pm
  • “It’s my decision for a trade that requires $140 million as a consequence.”
    That’s obviously Hank’s view of things, but it should be noted that his view is not necessarily shared by other owners.
    For example, John Henry, who cotnrolls the money in the Red Sox organization pushed for the Sox to sign A.J. Burnett instead of trading for Josh Beckett. Ultimately, he was overruled by the guys then in charge of baseball ops, and he deferred. Different styles, and they both may work, but Lockland DID supply the context of placing the comments as relating to the Santana trade.
    The amount of money involved is not relevant to the overall discussion Lockland was seeking to have. Is Cashman in charge, or is Steinbrenner? I’m not sure it’s clear, at this point, and a lack of clarity over roles in situations like this can be fatal — just ask Theo Epstein and Larry Lucchino.

    Paul SF December 20, 2007, 2:52 pm
  • “Forgive me, But I like to interpret behaviors when the appropriate time comes.”
    This is an excellent point Mike. At this point, despite all the talking I havent really seen anything that the yankees have done this offseason as deviating from what Cashman would have traditionally done. Giving up Hughes would have Hank’s finger prints all over it but would not be a fait complait that he isnt running the show. There is no team in baseball that doesnt run a decision like trading for and signing Santana by their owner. Hank just makes noise about it.
    I personally read the situation as Hank just making a bunch of noise to show he is the boss now. Its not necessarily the best way to do things but its pretty common in my experience. Im not sure if you guys would agree but we heard alot more from and about John Henry in the first few years after he bought the Red Sox. He has faded out a bit now but he asserted himself early on. (Im not saying he was at the level of Hank but can be compared using very broad brush strokes)

    sam-YF December 20, 2007, 2:59 pm
  • Hey Mike, why are you like this? Seriously, why? Do you really get a kick out of it? Do you enjoy it?
    Did you read the civil exchange between AG and I? Are you even remotely capable of a conversation not dripping with sarcasm?

    LocklandSF December 20, 2007, 2:59 pm
  • Did Beckett cost a $140 million extension at the time of the trade?
    Lockland is parsing one statement to make a grand assumption about “Who’s the Boss?”. The problem is that statement involves a very specific scenario where there’s significant money involved. It’s hardly “not relevant”.
    Come talk to me when Hank is saying it’s his decision on whether Kennedy and Ajax are traded for Lincecum.

    Anonymous December 20, 2007, 2:59 pm
  • What Paul said.

    LocklandSF December 20, 2007, 3:01 pm
  • “…I don’t know, but I’m guessing from his pedigree, it won’t be pretty….”
    it’ll be funny too, lockland, but probably not as funny as watching you guys come unglued when the yankees start their patented run to come back from that deficit…truthfully though, i’m rooting for the same thing you are, because while funny, seeing sox fans reaction to yankee success is very depressing…i wind up feeling less happy for myself and more sorry for them…i’m a good person…
    mike, you may as well resign yourself to the hank-hating…i have, in fact, i mostly ignore it lately…sox fans need someone to hate or make fun of…the jeter stuff is getting tiring even for them, sheffield is gone, giambi may as well be gone, so hank has given them a whole bunch of new material…he was stating the obvious about his right to control the money being spent, so it probably didn’t need to be said, but it’s hardly a big deal, or an act to undermine cashman…does anyone think all sox decisions begin and end with theo?…no, there’s too much evidence to the contrary….hanks just didn’t to say it…

    dc December 20, 2007, 3:01 pm
  • lockland – I didnt see anything wrong with Mike’s response what so ever. His points were well made and there wasnt anything uncivil about it.

    sam-YF December 20, 2007, 3:02 pm
  • Please, I’ve read enough flamethrowing regarding Hank that I’m frankly sick of all the opinions about every statement the guy makes.
    Worse, here you’re trying start something about who’s *really* in charge. It not only doesn’t matter, but this isn’t the trade where we would expect the owner to not be involved in a significant way. Given the luxury tax, Santana would cost 30 million next year. It’s exactly the trade where he should be involved.

    Mike YF December 20, 2007, 3:03 pm
  • Jesus guys, did you even bother to read my post, this wasn’t “Hank-hating” at all.

    LocklandSF December 20, 2007, 3:04 pm
  • Actually, I found it and despite the way it reads, it’s not just some “I’m in charge here!” kind of statement, but a statement that reflects reality: in the end, the final decision will come down to Hank Steinbrenner if he feels it’s the right way to go. It wouldn’t be the first time an owner made such a decision.
    Seems Sox fans forget that it was Mr. Lucchino that made the final decision that pulled the trigger on the deal for Josh Beckett and Mike Lowell while Theo was running around in a monkey suit.

    Jay-YF December 20, 2007, 3:06 pm
  • You guys are way too sensitive right now to have level headed conversations. I don’t see how any rational person can look at the current events of the Yankees organization and not at least ask the question, who’s in charge?

    LocklandSF December 20, 2007, 3:06 pm
  • That same money is in play for the Red Sox, is it not? In fact $20-25M per year would be an even larger portion of the Sox’ payroll than it would be for the Yankees’. Yet by all accounts, the decision-making for this deal is in Theo Epstein’s hands, not Henry’s or Lucchino’s.
    Don’t get me wrong. It’s Henry’s/Steinbrenner’s money. I’m sure they have limits on how much they’re willing to spend and make those limits clear, as they should. But there’s a difference between setting monetary limits and saying he has the final decision over a prospects-for-player trade. That’s micromanaging.
    The Sox and Yanks are in the same situation — seeking to acquire the same player with the same demands for a package of prospects each is barely willing to give up. But Epstein seems to be clearly running the negotiations for the Red Sox, while Steinbrenner with each statements seems to make the Yankee hierarchy less and less clear. (Of course, that’s just our perception. It could be perfectly fine behind closed doors, for all I know).
    Of course, Epstein got to this point by resigning and having that whole soap opera because his owner was making public statements about negotiations and trying to interfere with Epstein’s decisions. I’m not saying history’s repeating itself because we just can’t know, but the way it looks from out here seems reflective to me.

    Paul SF December 20, 2007, 3:09 pm
  • everyone take a deep breath.
    Lockland, there is some built up frustration around here because there have been countless digs at Hank and the yankee office from SFs with nothing to back it up. This has proven frustrating to us, please see YF responses in that context.
    That said, after the latest quotes from Hank, you have raised some valid questions but I dont think we are exactly treading on new ground here. Nothing has really changed and for now it seems that Hank is listening to his baseball people, since we havent seen any pinstripes on Johan. In that regard, the yankee front office has acted much like the scenario that Paul described for the sox front office with Beckett/Burnett.
    The problem i see here is that hot air from Hank is resulting from more hot air from his critics. As Mike said we need to reserve judgement as to how the decision tree has changed (if at all) for the yankees. When the Boss was in charge he always approved all major signings and trades so Hank doing this would not be a departure from the old at all.

    sam-YF December 20, 2007, 3:11 pm
  • now you insult us…nice, lockland, but i’ve come to expect that from you…go back and read your own comments…your opening was conciliatory, but it went downhill from there…it’s ok, you can’t help yourself…

    dc December 20, 2007, 3:12 pm
  • Yeah, just re-read my comments DC, and you couldn’t be more off, but that’s ok, I’ve come to expect poor reading comprehension from you.
    Don’t get me started on your comments.

    LocklandSF December 20, 2007, 3:17 pm
  • What events Lockland? Forget the statements, what events have altered the perception so dramatically in your eyes? Like I said, and thanks Sam for agreeing, let’s judge the moves that are made rather than the ones that are talked about.
    If Santana is acquired, it will be obvious that Cashman was overruled, but only on that specific move. If not, then he wasn’t.
    Meanwhile, as Sam notes, every single move made this off-season was according to plan. The only difference is they were more generous than they probably needed to be with Jorge and Mo, but again that’s a dollar-based decision. A-Rod went down mostly according to plan, and A-Rod ends up calling Hank directly a day or two after the debacle.
    So really, what are these “events” you’re talking about. Is it the rumor that Hank negotiated Letroy Hawkins contract on a napkin?

    Mike YF December 20, 2007, 3:18 pm
  • As a boss or a business owner there is a difference between making every decision and establishing enough authority and expertise such that you are comfortable allowing others to make decisions in your stead. Having the authority to do something (which Hank seems to have) is not always the same as feeling the responsibility to decide everything.
    Hank asserting that he makes every decision is curious to me. I am not interested in bashing Hank right now based on that statement. But if, as many here assert, Hank knows exactly what he is doing, that he is shrewdly calculating, then this is certainly a message to Cashman. Even if it isn’t a terrible message, or untrue (it’s not), it’s a message. It is an assertion of power, quite bluntly. There are probably some fans, like me, who think that this is most certainly an Owner’s right, even we believe it might not be necessary.

    SF December 20, 2007, 3:19 pm
  • Ok, events was a poor choice or words. I will leave it at that, since it’s obvious few of you are even capable of rational conversation right now.

    LocklandSF December 20, 2007, 3:21 pm
  • “…I’ve come to expect poor reading comprehension from you….”
    hahahahahahaha…that couldn’t be more perfect…out of comebacks already lockland?…
    hahahahahahaha
    “…Don’t get me started on your comments….”….please do, if you can “comprehend” them, that is…hahaha

    dc December 20, 2007, 3:22 pm
  • You guys are way too sensitive right now to have level headed conversations. I don’t see how any rational person can look at the current events of the Yankees organization and not at least ask the question, who’s in charge?
    Explain in detail exactly what is so terrible that Yankees fans should be concerned?

    Jay-YF December 20, 2007, 3:23 pm
  • Dang it. I had a nice long post, and Typepad ate it.
    The gist of what I said was:
    “I wonder if the difference is simply public vs. private statements. Presumably every owner — depending on personality and passion for the game, as well as their personal financial situation — has opinions about the way their franchise should be run, and expresses those opinions to some extent privately.
    But when such opinions are said publicly, leaving room for misinterpretation, they can sound more like ultimatums, which leads to even more potential misinterpretation about who’s in charge or the state of the FO. Etc. I think those are legitimate questions based on the statements because few other teams in baseball have an owner so willing to say things that invite this kind of analysis (overanalysis?).
    For all we know, the Sox FO could be in more disarray or be even more conflicted about Santana than the Yanks’ FO. How would we ever know? We can’t because they don’t make public statements, and when they do, it’s basically fluff. Heck, we could still only guess as to why Epstein and Lucchino fell apart until Seth Mnookin published “Feeding the Monster.” Do the Yanks have a Time reporter hanging around? :-)

    Paul SF December 20, 2007, 3:25 pm
  • It’s not a matter of being concerned Jay. Hank being in charge of everything might be the best possible outcome, what transpires in the coming years with him at the helm will tell that story.
    Again, put your self in the position of another GM trying to deal with the Yankees right now, considering Hanks recent statements, would you rather speak directly with Hank or Cashman?

    LocklandSF December 20, 2007, 3:27 pm
  • every single move made this off-season was according to plan.
    Hee. I think this is funny. And we SFs get knocked for backing our front office as faultless! Let’s send Cash, Hank, and Randy Levine to Myanmar, maybe they can find peace, such are their abilities to plan, negotiate, and solve problems! Hank and Cash, with their planning and negotiation skills they could have solved the civil strife in Northern Ireland! (Wait, that was George Mitchell…)
    Look, the Yankees may have signed everyone they wanted to sign, but the idea that this was all “according to plan” is a bit presumptuous and also a tad simplistic. Doesn’t this counter the idea that they were sincere in their efforts to retain Torre, if Girardi was the “plan”? Who knows if the Yankees could have extended Mariano for two years and $30M before the season, and not 3/$45 after the season? Same with Posada. We just don’t know what is the truth, Mike, so your assertions that this is all “according to plan” are on as much thin ice as those other ideas you criticize.

    SF December 20, 2007, 3:28 pm
  • The problem is: People reading WAY too much into a few statements. Worse, people are trying to read every Hank statement as if it was made by King George I.
    The kid is different. How different we won’t know until the actual decisions are made.

    Anonymous December 20, 2007, 3:30 pm
  • “Again, put your self in the position of another GM trying to deal with the Yankees right now, considering Hanks recent statements, would you rather speak directly with Hank or Cashman?”
    This is an absurd statement. The GM does the negotiating for a team, its how it works for the yankees.
    Lockland, questioning if yankee fans are too irrational to discuss something when they simply have an alternative opinion than you is just wrong and causes flamethrowing to begin. THe discussion was civil here until you specifically attacked Mike with your comment at 2:59. Do not try to pin animosity in this thread on YFs.

    sam-YF December 20, 2007, 3:33 pm
  • Torre, I’m sure they were willing to go either way. They would have been happy to have him back for a year. But just as happy to see him go.
    But I was specifically talking about player moves. They signed everyone they wanted to sign (Gasp! The Torre loyalists didn’t leave out of spite?).
    And actually the Yankee plan has always been to wait as long as possible and then overpay as necessary. They don’t negotiate long contracts during the arbitration years. They don’t tend to give extensions until the current contract runs out. It was the same deal with Mo and Jorge. they wanted to wait and see if both would stay healthy and productive.

    Anonymous December 20, 2007, 3:34 pm
  • > people are trying to read every Hank statement as if it was made by King George I.
    The thing is that he generates so much reading material.

    attackgerbil December 20, 2007, 3:35 pm
  • Last two anon’s are mine. Not sure why my name is getting stripped.
    mike YF

    Mike YF December 20, 2007, 3:35 pm
  • Heyman continues to report that Steinbrenner overruled Cashman to give the extra year to Posada and even negotiate with A-Rod… If that’s true — a big if — I guess we have to ask exactly whose plan the Yanks are following.

    Paul SF December 20, 2007, 3:36 pm
  • Mike’s tone is almost always combative and sarcastic, it has been since the day he started commenting here. It finally annoyed me to the point that I wanted to know why he behaved that way. Nothing more, nothing less.

    LocklandSF December 20, 2007, 3:37 pm
  • paul can you give me a link to that heyman article(s) i havent seen anything along those lines reported anywhere else. Im curious to see how he reports it.

    sam-YF December 20, 2007, 3:38 pm
  • i think the difference sf is that each team has a unique power structure with the owner having a different level of involvement depending on that owner’s preference…it seems odd to me that it would be suggested that somehow hank seems more hands on than his dad…sure his dad has been less visible and vocal as his health has deteriorated, but i don’t think any of us ever questioned whether he was [ultimately] in charge or not…how different is hank’s approach relative to cashman really?…none of us really knows the dynamics of how these guys work with each other, but my gut tells me cashman has been empowered, his opinion is respected, and when a decision has been made, he is the guy that will execute…not much different than when george was in charge, and probably not much different than many other teams, considering the magnitude of the decisions…we’ve heard cashman allude to having to stick within a budgetary framework…i don’t think for a minute that he’s imposed those restrictions on himself…those are executive decisions made at the highest level, by the guys he works for…the wierd thing is that hank actually seems to be less of a loose cannon, noisier maybe, but not loaded…we might have seen a different winter meeting if george were still in charge…

    dc December 20, 2007, 3:38 pm
  • You’re calling people sensitive and irrational, and I’m the one who’s combative?
    I’ll own up to the sacracasm. But geez, why are you so sensitive?

    Mike YF December 20, 2007, 3:39 pm
  • his tone was not combative at all in this tread until you said something to him specifically. sarcasm is used by almost all of the regular posters here.

    sam-YF December 20, 2007, 3:40 pm
  • By your logic, Mike, the Yankees can do no wrong, that whatever they chose to do was exactly what they set out to do before they did what they did.
    Personally I find that implausible, for any team.
    I just want any YFs who frequent this site to register Mike’s claims before they have an urge to generalize about how Sox fans blindly back their front office’s decisions.

    SF December 20, 2007, 3:40 pm
  • I have read nothing here that makes me think any differently about what I said in response to Locklands’ original question: Hank has asserted patent authority frequently in the past, and he continues to do so with a self-importance that is garish and awkward, but not necessarily wrong. He has no problem saying, “me, mine, I.” Yes, we will see how it pans out, but there is nothing wrong with Lockland or anyone else questioning if there is a change in the way the wind is blowing.

    attackgerbil December 20, 2007, 3:43 pm
  • I think you bring up an excellent point, DC.
    Irrespective of the statements – which I treat as interesting noise, but nothing more-
    Does anyone believe that Hank is MORE involved than George?
    If I had to guess, I’d say he’s actually LESS involved in the decision-making, especially since Santana isn’t already a Yankee. My opinion will only be heightened if they don’t execute the trade.

    Mike YF December 20, 2007, 3:43 pm
  • Any generalization about any team’s fans is wrong. YF, SF, or MF (mets fan)

    sam-YF December 20, 2007, 3:45 pm
  • Here you go, Sam. It’s still unsourced, which is why I said it’s a big “if.”
    http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/jon_heyman/12/19/scoop.wednesday/1.html

    Paul SF December 20, 2007, 3:45 pm
  • Ok, enough, I’m sorry I said anything. I think most of the regulars here, both YFs and SFs alike can attest that I pretty much never attack unless I’m provoked or the commenter is being a deliberate troll. We all like this blog because it’s one of the few places, if not the only place, where member of these two fan bases can break bread without breakig necks.

    LocklandSF December 20, 2007, 3:45 pm
  • I’d thought George was significantly less involved over the past two years as age caught up with him.
    It appears (again, only appears) that Hank is more involved than George had been since the now-famous “truce” with Cashman.

    Paul SF December 20, 2007, 3:47 pm
  • Whoa, if not leaping, you’re skipping and prancing to conclusions, SF.
    Does anyone here think their plan THIS off-season didn’t involve signing A-Rod, Jorge, and Mo?
    After that and shoring up the bullpen, I have no idea what the plan was.
    They may have been prepared to make an offer to Santana, but no one can say right now that their plan went out the window to make it happen. I know I will if they include Hughes + Kennedy.

    Mike YF December 20, 2007, 3:47 pm
  • The general feeling that I was getting from a lot of Yankee fans is that up until a few years ago they were frustrated with how much George and Tampa were involved in player decisions. The shift away from that toward a more traditional General Manager run team seemed to please a lot of Yankee fans. That’s why I was curious about this situation. If it is a return to the old ways, is that generally felt to be a good or bad thing among the fans?

    LocklandSF December 20, 2007, 3:50 pm
  • Hank didn’t really ‘overrule’ Cashman on Posada and A-Rod. The final decision came down to money and who writes the checks? The plan was to offer 3 years to Posada. But after the year he had and because he was in a strong position, he said he wanted four. Hank told Cash, “Go ahead.” Same with A-Rod.
    The thing people forget (and which Mike pointed out) is that the Yankees are a team that can afford to overpay. Better for the Yankees to sign Posada to an extra year than to sign a three year extension during the season and he blows his knee out the last week of the season.
    And SF, I don’t see how Mike is wrong. There’s no set plan in baseball and with contracts. You know that. The intent however was to re-sign Posada and Rivera and to get A-Rod back on the team. The fact that it didn’t work exactly as they would have liked doesn’t mean anything was done ‘wrong.’

    Jay-YF December 20, 2007, 3:50 pm
  • How can we know the Yanks’ plan? Maybe they always expected to give up Hughes and Kennedy, but are waiting until the last second to offer both. Cashman and Stein have both said they wouldn’t, but they both said they wouldn’t negotiate with A-Rod.
    So I also fail to see how we can know anything about a team’s “plan,” other than to fill holes and field a team that can compete for a title.

    Paul SF December 20, 2007, 3:52 pm
  • I planned to get a haircut last weekend. I wanted a nice, clean ‘do. So I went to the barber. I sat in the chair. But I forgot to tell him how to cut my hair, fell asleep, and now I have the words “KRAZEE EYEZ KILLAH” carved in the side of my noggin.
    So my “plan” to get a haircut succeeded, right?

    SF December 20, 2007, 3:53 pm
  • And SF, I don’t see how Mike is wrong. There’s no set plan in baseball and with contracts. You know that.
    Yes, exactly!! I am saying the same thing as you: we don’t know how close they met their “plan”. I never asserted that Mike was “wrong”, just that his assertions that he knew that the Yankees accomplished everything “according to plan” is unknowable.

    SF December 20, 2007, 3:55 pm
  • no way of knowing what the yanks plan was…they didn’t share it with me…but, i tend to agree with mike…they may not have accomplished everything they set out to do [again, i don't know], but i think we heard and read enough to suggest that the yankees intended to make the moves they made, without debating the torre deal again…they may have wanted to obtain santana, or keep him away from the sox, but they also appeared to know exactly what he was worth to them, a price that at least up until now, they seem reluctant to exceed…i think that’s all mike was trying to say sf…you may have been a little harsh jumping on that one little choice of words by him…he’s probably largely right…finally, on the subject of generalizations about fan bases, we all lapse from time to time, but there’s way too much sensitivity on that topic…i once suggested that we all get over it…it’s a pia to have to remember the “some, many, not all” disclaimers every time…if i specifically want to call one of you out to make a claim, that’s the best way to handle it…if you’re not named or the comment isn’t directed to you, then you’re not guilty…you know, kind of like the mitchell report… ;)

    dc December 20, 2007, 4:03 pm
  • I agree completely, DC, especially the last part.

    Mike YF December 20, 2007, 4:10 pm
  • dc, I really didn’t jump on anyone. All I asserted was that we as fans cannot know how close to a “plan” a team came, and we certainly can’t assert that our team did exactly as they planned while another team might not have. We simply don’t know. Non-controversial. Somehow this comment elicited that nastyish “skipping and prancing” jibe. Yet, that doesn’t register to you. Blinded by that two letter suffix, eh?

    SF December 20, 2007, 4:10 pm
  • Oh please, get over defending multi-gazillionaire Hank from the nefarious schemes and subversive attacks of SF, Lockland, and (obvious Red Sox moles such as) attackgerbil. The guy’s mouth is open _all_ the time. He _regularly_ says things that if they came from the mouths of Henry, Angelos, Turner, or any other owner would result in a crucifiction by Yankees fans. If one wants to wait to comment on Hank’s style of leadership until he has had a full year where he is by his own declaration steering the ship, fine. For me, there is no reason to wait to comment on his comments, such as..
    .. equating _every other major league team_ to the Mud Hens
    .. where was Joe’s career in ’95 when my dad hired him?
    .. we won’t negotiate
    .. where would Boston be without New York
    If you are saying that I should wait for Hank to have a chance to produce before commenting, why should I when he isn’t?

    attackgerbil December 20, 2007, 4:20 pm
  • This has to be my favorite though…
    “I’m a horse trader, I’m a horse bettor, I’m a horse breeder. You learn a little something when you’re in that business. If you can do horse racing, you can do baseball.”
    My god man…

    LocklandSF December 20, 2007, 4:24 pm
  • Keep in mind, it’s possible to admit that Hank is kind of a clown and still support him.
    As an example of that, I offer Curt Schilling. Total loud mouth clown, but I’m glad he’s on our side.

    LocklandSF December 20, 2007, 4:26 pm
  • “…I really didn’t jump on anyone….”
    that’s a matter of perception sf…go back and re-read your comment at 3:28pm
    “…that nastyish “skipping and prancing” jibe. Yet, that doesn’t register to you…”
    ok, here it is: mike is way out of line with that comment since you obviously took offense to it, and i mean that with all sincerity…he shouldn’t be let off the hook for that, but it’s a little impractical to expect me to address every off the wall comment that appears here…you once told me that you couldn’t do it either, and i would have to be satisfied that you, yf, and the others were doing the best you could to police that stuff…feels like you’re being inconsistent with me on that one…
    “…Blinded by that two letter suffix, eh?…”…if this wasn’t so blatantly off base and unfair sf, it might anger me, but, since it’s you… ;)

    dc December 20, 2007, 4:26 pm
  • “…Keep in mind, it’s possible to admit that Hank is kind of a clown and still support him….”
    amen, lockland…i know i appear as somewhat of a hank-apologist around here, but i just think there may be more to him than just be a big bag of wind…i have to admit i cringe every time i hear that he’s made yet another proclamation, and it’s ok to make fun of some of what he says…i only object to the extrapolations about his character made from those few isolated, yet priceless, quotes…none of us really knows him personally, or has ever worked for him…i guess if cashman leaves after his contract is up, hank’s detractors will have all the validation they need…

    dc December 20, 2007, 4:36 pm
  • that was a crack, dc. no worries!

    SF December 20, 2007, 4:39 pm
  • There was no intent to promote any nastiness. If I offended, I apologize. In the future I will make every attempt to avoid creative writing to liven up tired metaphors.

    Mike YF December 20, 2007, 5:31 pm
  • > I offer Curt Schilling
    Is that a variant on “take my wife, please”?

    attackgerbil December 20, 2007, 5:42 pm
  • that’s why i smiled sf…we’re cool…no worries…
    mike, you have a lot of good things to say, and i generally agree with you and support your right to state your opinions…we all do try [not always successfully as you can see, so it's not just you] to avoid comments that insult and that can be taken personally…you’ll learn what’s fair game and what’s not around here, along with who you can goof with and who you can’t…sf is always a good sport except when the line is crossed…that’s fair…

    dc December 20, 2007, 5:54 pm

Leave a Comment