You know you’ve reached peak A-Rod Derangement Syndrome when you use his experience with the Yankees as a warning sign. That’s what Joel Sherman does today at the New York Post. Here’s the tweet teasing the article:
— Joel Sherman (@Joelsherman1) February 12, 2014
And here’s the article. The upshot is just what the tweet implies: yes, everyone is happy on the day of the signing, but you never know what you’re going to get. With the “what you’re going to get” with A-Rod being painted as awful — the story literally says his example does not represent “success” — despite all the hope and promise his signing suggested back in 2004. Which is a pretty audacious level of revisionism.
What’s not in the article? Any mention that A-Rod led them to their last World Series title. That he won two MVP Awards in pinstripes. That in ten years with the Yankees he put up a line of .291/.386/.534 with 309 homers and 979 RBI, winning three Silver Slugger Awards. That during his tenure the Yankees won six division titles and won fewer than 90 games only twice (once when they won 89, once when he missed most of the season). That the Yankees were first in attendance every single year A-Rod played for them.
I’m not suggesting that A-Rod’s contract, financially speaking, ended up being the best deal. Nor am I suggesting the team-wide success and financial success of the franchise is attributable to A-Rod only. I am saying, however, that any suggestion that A-Rod was, in the aggregate, bad for the New York Yankees, takes a special kind of crazy and requires a special kind of denial of how good a baseball player and draw he was.
And, if Masahiro Tanaka is as successful with the Yankees as A-Rod was — if he wins a couple Cy Young Awards, routinely rates as one of the top pitchers in baseball and is part of a World Series champion — I don’t think that anyone would claim that the deal was a bad one like so many wish to do regarding A-Rod now.