I’m struggling to decide what to make of this bit of analysis of Lance Berkman’s season from Joel Sherman in today’s New York Post:
The Yankees lineup would look a lot more fierce with him as the DH while he has shown a renewed athleticism that he could have mixed in at first, left and right. And here is one other thing to at least consider: Berkman is one of Andy Pettitte’s best friends. If the Yankees had kept Berkman would that have convinced Pettitte to play for another year?
And if Berkman were a Yankee he wouldn’t be playing right field and thus maybe wouldn’t have forced himself into shape and would be hitting .232/.305/412. And if me auntie were a man she’d be my uncle. And if ifs and buts were candy and nuts we’d all have a happy Christmas.
More to the point, one paragraph before he offers the above passage, Sherman notes that keeping Berkman was never a possibility. And last fall, when his option was up, Sherman never once — nor did anyone else on the planet — think that the Yankees keeping Berkman made any kind of sense. Because it didn’t. Not at $15 million or at any other price.
So what’s the point? Just to throw meat at the people who will always seek to find some fault with whatever the Yankees are doing? To appeal to the “if we only had Andy Pettitte!” dead-enders?