The Yankees are about to land a pitcher

Leave a comment

UPDATE:  It’s not Zambrano, according to Feinsand. The Cubs haven’t asked him to waive his no-trade clause as of this evening, which would seem to be a precursor to any serious talks. I’m starting to get more enamored of the Javy Vazquez stuff. For one thing, the Braves are about the only other team in a position to trade starting pitching. For the reasons we’ve said, Lowe makes little sense. The only thing that doesn’t make sense re: Vazquez from the Yankees’ perspective is that he was there once and didn’t pitch all that great. But haven’t the Bombers given up such provincial thinking?  He’s a lot better now than he used to be.

11:14 P.M:  No news, but let’s speculate. That “this is not a salary dump” stuff could be interpreted loosely, right? I mean, Derek Lowe is owed $45 million, but Nick Swisher is owed $16.75 million on his deal. Braves kick in a little money and maybe we’re out of salary dump land? OK, yeah, that’s dumb and I still see no reason the Yankees would want Derek Lowe. Chalk it up to boredom and wishful thinking.  New guess: Javy Vazquez’s triumphant return to Gotham . . .

10:24 P.M.:  Mark Feinsand doesn’t know who it is, but he says that it’s not a salary dump deal, so there goes my Derek Lowe-for-Nick Swisher fantasies. Zambrano? That’s my guess for now. Zambrano. Guesses will change every seven minutes until I run out of pitchers.

9:52 P.M.Rosenthal is on it too, though he says it’s not Aaron Harang.

8:46 P.M.: Buster Olney tweetsHeard this:
Yankees working very hard tonight on deal for starting pitcher.
Remember that they came close to deal for Aaron Harang in summer.”

Not sure why he’d mention Harang if the deal they’re working on wasn’t for Harang.

Report: The Yankee Stadium charity is a secretive, self-dealing boondoggle

Getty Images
1 Comment

The New York Times has a blistering report on the New Yankee Stadium Community Benefits Fund. The Fund is the charity the Yankees created in 2006 as a means of making up for the negative impact the construction New Yankee Stadium had on the surrounding community, primarily via its taking over 25 acres of parkland.

The idea of the Fund was a good one: to distribute $40 million in cash grants and sports equipment, and 600,000 free baseball tickets to community organizations in the Bronx over four decades. And it has been distributing funds and tickets. As the Times reports, however, the manner in which it has done so raises some red flags. Such as:

  • Charitable donations have, in an amazing coincidence, often gone to other charities which share common board members with the New Yankee Stadium Fund;
  • Funds have gone to many wealthy groups in affluent parts of the Bronx far away from the Stadium while the area around the stadium remains one of the most impoverished in the nation. For example, a private school in a wealthy part of the borough and a rec center in a gated community have gotten a lot money that, one would think anyway, could be and should be devoted to organizations closer to the ballpark that are in greater need; and
  • There has been almost no transparency or oversight of the Fund. Reports which were supposed to have been submitted have not been. And no one, apart from the Times anyway, seems to care. The Yankees certainly don’t seem to. Indeed, as the article notes, the team has worked hard to keep the Fund’s operations out of its hands. They just got their new ballpark and write the checks and hand out the tickets. Everything else is someone else’s problem.

Cronyism in private philanthropy is not uncommon. As is a lack of oversight. Often it’s the best connected people who receive the benefit of such funds, not the people most in need. This is especially true in charities whose creation was not born of a philanthropic impulse as much as it was born of a need to put a good face on some not-so-good business dealings.

If the Times’ report is correct — and the lack of anyone coming forward to dispute it on the record despite the Times’ requests that they do suggests it is — it appears as if the New Yankee Stadium Community Benefits Fund is one of those sorts of charities.

Who is the fastest sprinter in baseball?

Getty Images
5 Comments

We’re not talking the 100 meters here. We’re talking practical baseball sprinting. That’s defined by the StatCast folks at MLB as “feet per second in a player’s fastest one-second window,” while sprinting for the purposes of, you know, winning a baseball game.

StatCast ranked all players who have at least 10 “max effort” runs this year. I won’t give away who is at the top of this list, but given that baseball’s speedsters tend to get a lot of press you will not be at all surprised. As for the bottom of the list, well, the Angels don’t pay Albert Pujols to run even when he’s not suffering from late career chronic foot problems, so they’ll probably let that one go. I will say, however, that I am amused that the third slowest dude in baseball is named “Jett,” however.

Lately people have noticed some odd things about home run distances on StatCast, suggesting that maybe their metrics are wacko. And, of course, their means of gauging this stuff is proprietary and opaque, so we have no way of knowing if their numbers are off the reservation or not. As such, take all of the StatCast stuff you see with a grain of salt.

That said, even if the feet-per-second stuff is wrong here, knowing that Smith is faster than Jones by a factor of X is still interesting.