If you're gonna put Joba in the pen, make it count

Leave a comment

Joba.jpgIf the Yankees are hellbent on keeping Joba Chamberlain and Phil Hughes in the pen, David Pinto has a great idea of how to maximize their value:

It strikes me that both in the pen could radically alter the Yankees
roster. The Yankees would only need nine pitchers, maybe ten. The
starting staff is more than capable of going six or seven innings, and
in the case of Sabathia, eight. Joba and Hughes take turns going two
innings when needed, so they build up a decent amount of innings during
the season (both getting over 100). They’re not one-inning setup men,
they’re in for however long it takes to get to the ninth. New York can
then afford to carry a third catcher and two slick fielding
infielders to rest A-Rod and Jeter late in games.

This is an outstanding idea. Sure, I’d like to see Chamberlain get a chance to start without being subject to the Joba Rules, but I’m much more invested in seeing teams break out of La Russian bullpen habits and make the most out of the 25 roster slots they’re given, and this sort of thing would give La Russa a heart attack.

If the Yankees turned Hughes and Chamberlain into a couple of mini-Gossages and were in turn able to add a couple more guys to the bench, the Yankees would be sitting really, really pretty, strategically speaking. And it would be great for Chamberlain and Hughes too. More innings out of the pen would make it much easier for them to transition into starters one day.

The real question is whether it’s the sort of thing Joe Girardi would be capable of managing properly. I have my doubts — Girardi is nothing if not conventional, and this would be fairly unconventional — but if Cashman bought into it, he could dictate it to Girardi.

I like this idea so much that I’m already sad that it probably won’t happen.

Must-Click Link: Mets owners are cheap, unaccountable and unconcerned

Getty Images
2 Comments

Marc Carig of Newsday took Mets owners Fred and Jeff Wilpon to the woodshed over the weekend. He, quite justifiably, lambasted them for their inexplicable frugality, their seeming indifference to wanting to put a winning team on the field and, above all else, their unwillingness to level with the fans or the press about the team’s plans or priorities.

Mets ownership is unaccountable, Carig argues, asking everything of fans and giving nothing in the way of a plan or even hope in return:

Mets fans ought to know where their money is going, because it’s clear that much of it isn’t ending up on the field . . . They never talk about money. Whether it’s arrogance or simply negligence, they have no problem asking fans to pony up the cash and never show the willingness to reciprocate.

And they’re not just failing to be forthcoming with the fans. Even the front office is in the dark about the direction of the team at any given time:

According to sources, the front office has only a fuzzy idea of what they actually have to spend in any given offseason. They’re often flying blind, forced to navigate the winter under the weight of an invisible salary cap. This is not the behavior of a franchise that wants to win.

Carig is not a hot take artist and is not usually one to rip a team or its ownership like this. As such, it should not be read as a columnist just looking to bash the Wilpons on a slow news day. To the contrary, this reads like something well-considered and a long time in the works. It has the added benefit of being 100% true and justified. The Mets have been run like a third rate operation for years. Even when the product on the field is good, fans have no confidence that ownership will do what it takes to maintain that success.

All that seems to matter to the Wilpons is the bottom line and everything flows from there. They may as well be making sewing machines or selling furniture.