There are certain moments that happen in sports that you know will change the way things are viewed from there on out: the Red Sox coming back from an 0-3 deficit to beat the Yankees and then go on to win their first World Series in 86 years, Buster Douglas knocking out Mike Tyson to become the heavyweight champion, and NC State taking down Houston to win the NCAA Tournament to name a few. Sunday’s final round of the PGA Championship is now one of those moments.

After last year’s U.S. Open, I wrote that Tiger Woods’ putt on the 72^nd hole to force a playoff was amazing for so many reasons, but maybe none more so than the fact that it kept his invincibility in tact. Think about it for a minute, had Tiger missed that putt, he would’ve lost to 45-year old Rocco Mediate (a man who had never won a major), after entering Sunday’s final round with the lead. It would’ve marked the first time in his career that he failed to win a major after taking the lead into Sunday.

Now you may say, big deal, so what. But it is a big deal, and the reason why is because had Tiger lost, it would’ve given other players, players much better than Mediate, the confidence to know that Tiger is, in fact, beatable. Instead, Tiger added to his legacy by sinking that putt, and then doing it again the very next day.

Fast-forward to Sunday’s final round at the PGA Championship, and we were once again faced with the same scenario. Although this time Tiger’s opponent was someone much more obscure than Mediate, it was Y.E. Yang from South Korea. Besides the point that barely anyone knew who Yang was, the fact that Tiger had the lead entering Sunday meant everyone KNEW he was going to win. After all, he was a perfect 14-for-14 when leading after 54 holes of a major. So in other words, the final 18 was all but a formality before handing Woods his fifth Wanamaker Trophy.

But somehow, some way, Yang was able to do what nobody else in the last 12 years has been able to do, and that’s go head-to-head with Tiger in the final round of a major and beat him. So what does this all mean? Well, it certainly opens up a bunch of possibilities.

If you look at the examples from above, the one most similar to this is Buster Douglas knocking out Mike Tyson. Tyson was the most feared man alive. Professional boxers, men who got PAID to do this, would literally shake in the ring at the near sight of Tyson. Along comes Douglas, who yes was a contender, but no one thought a legitimate one, and he knocks out Tyson. What did Tyson do after that fight with his career? Nothing really.

Now I’m not saying this is going to happen to Tiger by any means, but I do believe other golfers will gain confidence in knowing that he’s no longer invincible, and those final rounds of majors will suddenly become that much more interesting.

The mark of a true champion is measured by how they deal with adversity, and there’s no greater adversity in sports than losing. Michael Jordan lost in the 1995 playoffs to the Orlando Magic, and he came back to win three straight titles from 1996-1998. Roger Federer lost to Rafael Nadal in the finals of Wimbledon in 2008, and came back to win another epic match against Andy Roddick this year to break Pete Sampras’ mark of 14 grand slam titles. Tiger Woods now gets to deal with this type of adversity for the first time in his incredible career. Either way he responds, you will be able to look back at August 16, 2009, and know that history was made. 

 

Since the baseball trade deadline is now a few days old, I figured I would add my thoughts on what transpired.

First off, I am actually happy that the Yankees did not make any major deals at the deadline. The fact that Hal Steinbrenner stuck to what he told Brian Cashman during the offseason, that is if you sign Mark Teixeira then there is no more money to make mid-season moves, well I applaud that. If you can’t win after spending $180 million on Teixeira, $161 million on CC Sabathia, and $82.5 million on A.J. Burnett, then you don’t deserve to win.

With that said, are the Yankees flawed? Absolutely, and not getting another starting pitcher, like Jarrod Washburn, might come back to bite them. But if this holds true and the team does not make waiver moves, then I am happy with that. 

Before we move on to the other teams, the one move the Yankees did make, acquiring Jerry Hairston, Jr. from the Cincinnati Reds, could be one of those under-the-radar type moves that ends up making a big difference. Having a super-utility guy like Hairston lengthens the bench exponentially for this team to the point where I wouldn’t be surprised to see Cody Ransom waived, and Shelley Duncan brought back up. Ransom has been terrible at the plate, and his defense has been nothing to brag about. So if that’s the case, why not give Duncan a chance when he provides power, and can play 1B or a corner outfield position (I know, he doesn’t play the OF very well either) to sub the starters there?

One more thing….there’s been a lot of talk about Joba Chamberlain’s innings limit for 2009, and how the team is going to keep him to those innings. Well, if it were up to me, and Chamberlain continues to pitch as well as he has since the All-Star Break, I say skip his turn when you can, but otherwise forget the limit. Take your chances next year and the year after to how his arm holds up. If you have the chance to win now, you do it.

With that said, I’d be shocked if that were to happen. So what’s the alternative? My guess? They’ll move Joba to the bullpen, and bring Alfredo Aceves into the rotation. If the Yankees are lucky enough to make the playoffs, they could potentially go with a three-man rotation, especially since we know Sabathia can work on 3-days rest. They would then use Joba in the 7th, Phil Hughes in the 8th, and Mariano Rivera in the 9th.

Staying in New York, people are saying that the Mets made a big mistake by not making any moves at the deadline. Really? Why? How so? As sad as it is for the Mets, this is turning into a lost season. With the injuries to Carlos Beltran, Jose Reyes, Carlos Delgado, and J.J. Putz to name a few, the Mets really didn’t have many choices. Were they supposed to trade away prospects for someone when that person couldn’t really make a difference? And what prospects do they have to deal?

The Mets right now are a team that’s in a bit of disarray. The young players they do have, don’t really have positions, and the starting rotation behind Johan Santana is virtually non-existent. Therefore any moves they made would have had to have been  salary dumps, and I don’t think many teams wanted Luis Castillo’s contract.

Speaking of salary dumps, the Pittsburgh Pirates are taking a ton of flack for trading away virtually their entire lineup from Opening Day 2008. To be perfectly honest with you, I have no problem with them doing that. The players they had were not helping them win, so if they have some trading chips, why not use them to rebuild the system from the ground up?

The problem one could have with this team is who are the prospects they’ve gotten in return? Did their scouts pick out the right players in all of these deals? That will be the way to judge what the Pirates are doing? But when you think about it, what’s the point of keeping Jack Wilson, Freddy Sanchez, Jason Bay, Xavier Nady, etc. and paying them all of that money, if you’re not going to win? The only one you could question is Nate McClouth, but they had Andrew McCutchen coming up, so they made the move to strengthen the system and clear a space for the rookie. Oh by the way, not sure if you noticed, but McCutchen hit three homeruns in one game the other day. So as for clearing all of that salary, I, for one, say kudos.

The Cleveland Indians also made some salary dumps, and if you’re an Indians fan, then you have to trust Mark Shapiro here because he’s done this before. He helped rebuild an entire team when he traded away Bartolo Colon for Grady Sizemore, Cliff Lee, and Brandon Phillips. Between Sabathia last year, and Lee and Victor Martinez this year, you have to hope he’s done the same thing.

In regards to Martinez, I think this was a good move for the Red Sox because they didn’t give up too much in Justin Masterson and two minor league pitchers. But I am not sure it was as good of a move as everyone else does. There’s no doubt that Martinez has a great bat, and being able to switch hit is a huge bonus for the Red Sox. But anytime you play him, you are weakening the defense. If he catches, you lose Jason Varitek. If he plays first, you weaken yourself at two positions because Kevin Youkilis has to play third, and he’s not as good there as Mike Lowell is, and Martinez is not as good at first as Youkilis is. Furthermore, it means that someone, who is used to playing every day, has to sit everyday. While Terry Francona is phenomenal at managing players, this will be an interesting one to watch.

Now on to Lee and the Phillies. I think the defending champions did a very nice job landing Lee, especially since it’s not just for this year, but next year as well. With that said, I definitely would have pulled the trigger on Roy Halladay. There comes a time when you have to way the pros and cons of a move, and winning a World Series championship. With the players they currently have on their roster, and the ages of these players, the Phillies window for winning another title is probably 2-3 years. With that said, who gives you the better chance at winning, Halladay or Lee?

I know people will say it would be tough to deal Kyle Drabek or J.A. Happ, but really? What’s more important, hoping these prospects turn into the real deal, or having a legitimate chance to win the whole thing for three straight years??

If you don’t live in the New York area, then you probably missed what happened earlier this afternoon. The New York Mets, and more specifically, Omar Minaya, held a press conference to announce that they had fired VP of Player Development, Tony Bernazard. While that was supposed to be the story of the conference, Minaya apparently went to the Alex Rodriguez school of press conferences, and instead of cleaning up the situation, made it infinitely worse.

It was one thing that Minaya was scrambling around trying to figure out what he was going to say, and in doing so, seemed to keep digging himself a deeper and deeper hole. Yet just when you thought it was awkward, the Mets GM made it that much more so by calling out Adam Rubin of the New York Daily News, the writer who broke the story.

Minaya said he was essentially caught off-guard by the story because Rubin had asked about working in player development the past couple of years. He went so far as to say that Rubin actually asked both he and Bernazard about jobs with the Mets.  I’m not sure if Minaya realizes how big of an accusation that this was, but if he did, well shame on him, and if he didn’t, well shame on him again.

It’s bad enough that the Mets as a team are in disarray, but to bring something else into the equation, something like this, well you have to wonder the intelligence level of this man. If he thought for an instance that accusing Rubin of these allegations would somehow deflect some of the attention off Bernazard and the team, well he was right on one end. No one cares about Bernazard right now.

Minaya should now realize that he’s in for a real fight, and I don’t mean one in the papers, I mean a potential fight in the courts. What Minaya said could be viewed as slander if he can’t support his words with evidence. And if that’s the case, the Mets and their fans can now thank him for exacerbating their problems.

About a year ago I compared Omar Minaya and the Mets ownership to Isiah Thomas and the Knicks ownership for the way they ran their respective teams. If you remember correctly, Thomas, the Knicks, and Madison Square Garden faced an embarrassing lawsuit in which they had to pay $11.6 million. While the two cases are certainly different, the similarities in the teams and how they’re run continue to go down the same path.

Minaya and the Mets had to fire Bernazard essentially for stupidity. The same fate may now be in line for Minaya, and rightfully so.

When the New York Yankees were winning World Series championships during the late 90's and 2000, they never made excuses. If a player went down, they simply brought up another one from the farm system, or made a trade that actually made sense. Fast-forward to the present, and the excuses are a plenty.

There has been so much talk over the last two years about whether to make Joba Chamberlain a starter or a reliever, and while I have already written a piece about that, that's not even the issue. The issue is why is it such a big deal if he goes back and forth? Why does he have to be one or the other? Why can't he be a reliever now since the team needs him there, and then maybe be a starter in the future? Why is Joba so much more valuable to the Yankees than Justin Masterson is to the Red Sox? Masterson is a young, hard-throwing right-hander who has potential, yet you don't hear the Red Sox and their fans and media debating whether or not he should be a starter or a reliever. Instead, he does whatever the team needs him to do, and that helps leads to wins.

And before we get off this Joba talk, let me say a couple of more things. Why do people constantly say Chamberlain can be the Yankees version of Josh Beckett? Is that really what they want? Has anybody ever looked at Beckett's career numbers? Granted he is an incredible post-season pitcher, but he has had one good regular season...ONE! He has a lifetime ERA of 3.86, and a history of being on the disabled list. I don't know about you, but if I'm touting Chamberlain to be the next coming of somebody, I want him to be better and more consistent than Beckett.

Also, in regards to Joba, he has to stop listening to the media about how he's supposed to pitch. I can't tell you how many times people have said he needs to have three or four pitches in order to dominate as a starter, or how he has to pace himself. Really? Why? Did Sandy Koufax have three or four pitches? Does Justin Verlander tire in the 9th inning?

When Joba pitches, you can almost see how he's trying to prove to everyone that he has four good pitches, instead of going with his best stuff, fastball and slider, and mix in a couple of curves or changeups to keep hitters honest. He's like Phil Mickelson in a golf tournament. Instead of bringing the normal allotment of clubs, Mickelson will sometimes bring two drivers, or six wedges. He out-thinks himself as opposed to just going out there and playing golf. Joba needs to go out there and throw his fastball and slider until someone proves they can hit it. Once they prove that they can, then he can adjust, not the other way around.

A quick follow up with Beckett. I will say this right now...unless he agrees to a contract between $10-12 (maybe 13) million a year, the Red Sox are going to let him walk as a free agent. He's no longer their best pitcher, they have Jon Lester and Dice-K locked up, some young pitchers on the rise, and may very well make a run at Jake Peavy. If I'm Theo Epstein and the Red Sox, I let Beckett walk.

Now, back to the Yankees and their excuses. Why is it that the cold weather is such a factor for their pitchers but not the other teams? How come CC Sabathia has had trouble getting his velocity up to 97mph, but Lester, Verlander, and many others haven't? Heck, A.J. Burnett, a Yankee, hasn't even had trouble! So why then, should it take the weather changing for Sabathia and others to "heat" up?

And what's the excuse for Joe Girardi? When the Yankees were looking to replace Joe Torre, I thought Girardi was a great fit. He had experience managing in the National League, he could handle a bullpen, and he had an aggressive style. Well, so much for all of those thoughts. Rarely do you see a hit and run or small ball, and his use of the bullpen this year has been virtually inexplicable. It seems as if no one is ever held accountable, and the excuses for poor performances fly out of his mouth about as often as balls do out of the new Stadium.

If a team is struggling as much as the Yankees are to hit with runners on base, let alone with runners in scoring position, then it would only seem logical to try an take the pressure off of them. How do you do that? Well, how about a hit and run? This way the player has to swing, and is only thinking about putting the ball in play on the ground, as opposed to trying to crush it. Or maybe even a safety squeeze if a runner is on third with less than two outs? You know, something that teams do in the NATIONAL LEAGUE.

Watching the Yankees the past couple of years has been like watching beer-league softball. One night they'll win with a complete-game shutout, and the next they'll serve up batting practice to the opposition. There's been no consistency, except for being consistently inconsistent.

The root of the problem is starting pitching, yet the team spent $243.5 million on Sabathia and Burnett during the offseason to solve that problem. So what's the excuse now?

Amendment To Previous Entry

In the previous entry, I wrote about the new Yankee Stadium, and how much I disliked it. While I still support everything I said, I would like to add a positive that I noticed when I went to the game on Wednesday. With the concourses being so big and open, there is actually a TON of space to grab some food, and stand around to watch the game with a great view. So if you have upper deck seats, you can actually head down to field level, and watch the game from there as long as you don't mind standing.  So far, that to me is the best part of the new ballpark.

The baseball season is about a month old, and on Tuesday night, I made my first ever trip to the new Yankee Stadium. I had spoken to people who had already been there, and I had watched games on TV, but I was very excited, to say the least, about seeing it for myself. Unfortunately, after seeing it, the initial thoughts I had from watching it on TV, and seeing pictures in newspapers and magazines were validated.

I couldn't seem to pinpoint what was bothering me about the New Stadium until last night. While the frieze around the ballpark is awesome, the division of seats is terrible. There's no flow to each section. There are odd angles in the outfield seats dividing the "chair-backs" with the bleachers, and the bleachers themselves look cheap. At least at the old ballpark, there was some color. Here at the new one, it looks like a big block of cement.

As you continue looking to the outfield, you see weird, steel, angular, futuristic structures behind the scoreboards and seats that are home to walkways. It reminds me of the new Soldier Field in Chicago, and if anyone has seen that, well you know what an eyesore that is.

Then, as you continue to look around the Stadium, the wall in front of each section (field, mezzanine, etc.) appears to be a steel fence. In other words, you can see right through it, unlike at the old ballpark where there was a solid blue wall in front of each section where people would hang signs.

And then last but not least, is of course the legends seats, or the section better known as the "ridiculously expensive empty seats. " I actually had the opportunity to sit in those seats last night, and while they were amazing, I felt weird sitting there. The fact that you're separated from the rest of the fans is a bit uncomfortable. You actually feel like you're part of the wealthy class sitting in the Roman Coliseum waiting for everyone else to revolt. In other words, it's not what a baseball game-experience should be.

As much as this pains me to say, seeing what the Yankees have done with this new stadium, trying to squeeze every penny out of each fan, rich or poor, and treating their own (Paul O'Neill) with such a lack of respect, makes me embarrassed to call myself a fan of the team. Oh yeah, it also makes me long for the days of the old Stadium just across the street, the one that actually gave the team a home-field advantage.