Over at The New Yorker, Roger Angell weighs in on the Joe Torre book. Angell is impressed with the book and he misses Torre:
Floods of media will turn out at Yankee Stadium on April 16th for Opening Day (against the Indians), the official début of the new $1.3 billion park, built largely at taxpayer expense, and also the unveiling of the Yankees’ two brand-new starting pitchers, C. C. Sabathia and A. J. Burnett, signed for a combined two hundred and forty-three million dollars, and a new first baseman, Mark Teixeira, who comes with a hundred-and-eighty-million-dollar price tag. They will be closely watched, but probably not as much as Alex Rodriguez, whose recent admission that he used steroids while with the Rangers in the 2001 to 2003 seasons has dominated the Yankee news in spring training, as it will through much of the summer. Fans and sports columnists and op-edists and bloggers will ceaselessly debate his future as a potential Hall of Famer, when and if he surpasses the lifetime seven hundred and sixty-two homers struck by the tainted Barry Bonds, who is about to go on federal trial in California for perjury. Also on trial, so to speak, will be the new Stadium’s attendance figures in this era of economic anxiety, and renewals on those new corporate luxury boxes (grand luxe, perhaps, at a half million dollars and up per season). When the races begin, the Yanks will have to win in the unforgiving new baseball arena created by the luxury-tax impost on top team payrolls, which has produced fourteen different names in the World Series in the past nine years, and eight different winners, and will make it hard on dynasties, however famous, in the years ahead.
Joe Torre won’t be there, and, come to think of it, he’s better off where he is, away in the wrong time zone. He’s a cinch for the Hall of Fame—as a manager, not a player—whenever he’s ready to retire, and he’s already in the Grownups Hall of Fame, which has a few more members than the one in Cooperstown but tougher admission standards.
As much a fan of Roger Angell's as I am, his comments didn't motivate me to read the book. I think Olney's book, which Mr. Angell refers to, explains how the team got to where they are as well as it can be told. Long, large contracts. Bad scouting, a weakness which was addressed in yesterday's NYT. Signings of foreign born players to keep up with the trend rather than add a utile peace to the team. Nothing new from any of them other than cheap gossip from two people who don't matter, much.
I think that the Yankees were just slow to adapt to the changing state of baseball, namely the rise in efficient, information based teams (e.g. Indians, A's, and most importantly the Sox) and the new revenue sharing paradigm giving these teams more money to lock up their prime players. When the Yankees built their dynasty a pitchers like Cone, Mussina, Key etc. came on the market still in their primes. Nowadays, teams value their draft picks, and with elite players being locked up so early (e.g. Longoria, Sizemore etc.) the Yankees way of doing things was outmoded. I think that, more than anything has contributed to the demise of the team. The FAs that used to be there weren't and so the team couldn't patch its roster together, particularly in the pitching department.
I should amend, we're talking about the "demise" of a team that won 89 games in the toughest division of baseball (had they been in any other division they likely would have made the playoffs) and that's with their arguably most valuable position player (Posada) and pitcher (Wang) missing most of the season.
I'll admit, a year of Joe Girardi made me miss Joe Torre too.
[3] Thank you for that note. Of course you are right, and it becomes a bit absurd to talk of a Yankee disaster when you look at it that way.
I'm waiting for my New Yorker to arrive to read Angell ... print feels right for him, and his spring piece is one of the ways that baseball season kicks off for me. (Just as his post WS piece wraps the year.)
I think that the Yankees were just slow to adapt to the changing state of baseball, namely the rise in efficient, information based teams and the new revenue sharing paradigm giving these teams more money to lock up their prime players.
But were they really? The Yanks finished behind the Red Sox two years in a row, and they were killed by injuries two years in a row.
If the Yankees have a flaw, it's their defense. I'm sure with a tighter defense, the pitchers look better, and maybe they win a few more games.
I missed the carosel of rotating managers--Martin, Greene, Stump, Bucky and Buck. I don't think Girardi is the answer, but, then again, when Joe came in I thought it was another bum of the month.
I juries hit every team, as do defections. Boston had a major hitter injured, a start backup who went in and out of the lineup and arguably their top pitcher not in top form. In addition, the rbi machine left for LA. They had a farm that provided substitutes who performed better than expected. And, they played defense and ran because they wanted to win any way they could.
Who came to the Yankees cause--no one. Counting on the staff that Cashman put forth last year didn't make sense and it didn't work. It is obvious that he didn't think it would work this year as well or he would not have bought the arms he now has to lead the rotation. Mo's injury didn't even hurt as much as it could, he being the one whose failures added to the slide, because they couldn't produce runs when they needed them. They were a flawed team and they may still be one, especially if they have to rely on A-Rod to produce in the clutch. I also am not yet sold on Girardi.