Shut up, please. You annoy me. All you do is lick the unshowered sphincters of New England teams, bash New York and ignore the rest of the world. I know you're up in Bristol and that is technically in New England but really, aren't you supposed to be a national media company? I didn't realize that ESPN was really just a simulcast of the New England Sports Network. So, before I go home for the weekend, just do me this one favor? Shut up and never open your biased mouth again. I'm the only one allowed to have biases around here and that's because I'm not in the media business.
* * * * *
From ESPN.com:
"How much would George Steinbrenner pay for a mulligan on the Alfonso Soriano trade? Soriano is one home run away from joining Jeff Kent, Ryne Sandberg and Bret Boone as the fourth second baseman to hit at least 20 in four straight seasons. "
I don't think George would agree. I don't think too many Yankee fans would agree. I don't think any objective and knowledgeable baseball fan would agree, either. If only ESPN would stop trying to paint every single move the Yanks have made as some sort of short-sighted brain fart. The Yanks have made some HORRENDOUS moves over the last 5 years, no denying that -- Giambi, Womack, Lofton, White, Karsay, Vazquez, Weaver -- jeez, the list could go on for pages. But trading Soriano for ARod just can't be considered one of them.
Not only has ARod paid for himself through increased attendance at the ballpark and increased ratings on the YES Network, ARod has been a great player for the Yanks. He's having an MVP type year in 2005 , something every Yankee Hater out there can't bear to admit. He is fitting in on the ballclub, he's a fan favorite and he generally does his job in a manner befitting arguably the best player in baseball. In the one-plus season that Soriano's been in Texas, the Yanks have played Miguel Cairo, Enrique Wilson and Tony Womack at 2nd base before settling on rookie prospect Robinson Cano. Cano's been a pretty damn fine player for us, certainly better than the collective performance of Robin Ventura, Todd Zeile, Aaron Boone and Drew Henson at 3rd. If Soriano were here, Cano would either be in the minors or would've been traded. I'm happy to have an infield with ARod and Cano as opposed to one of Soriano and a member of the above-listed bummy players who manned the hot corner from 2002-2003.
So, before ESPN would have anyone believe that the Yanks blew it by making the trade, one should stop and think for a second. Maybe ESPN just needs to shut up.
2 comments:
Mo will remember that, when the A-Rod/Soriano deal went down, I said that it was a bad deal - not because of the talent involved, but, as I said, because "Alex Rodriguez just will not ever win a title."
When I made that prediction, most everyone who heard it scoffed. Most of the reactions centered around the seeming ridiculousness of asserting that the best player in the game, not even age 30, won't make teams better and put them in the position to win championships.
There's no logic behind my prediction. I can't defend it with anything coming close to a rational argument, except to suggest (as some have) that some teams featuring a superstar underperform because they rely too heavily on the superstar. I'm not sure I believe that, though.
Point is: Alex Rodriguez will never win a championship. He's a phenomenal player - yes, an MVP-type season thus far - and a model citizen. I like Alex Rodriguez; he's fun to watch and I'm not one that roots against him. But Alex Rodriguez, for reasons most of us will never be able to explain or comprehend, will never win a championship, no matter who he plays for. And when the Yanks look back at their title-less A-Rod era, they'll wish they'd kept Soriano, for that reason alone.
As you point out, the "ARod will never win" theory is merely conjecture and not based on any rational or logical foundation. Anyway, that said, how many championships has Soriano won? By my count, it's still zero to zero and the Rangers, despite their improvement since ARod left, are no closer to winning a title than they were 1, 3, 5, 7, 9 or 30 years ago.
Post a Comment