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.

Enough people have shared their opinions on whether or not A-Rod told the truth during his press conference, so I'm going to focus on some other aspects of this never-ending story...

•    Watching Derek Jeter address the media today further illustrated how and why A-Rod will never, and could never be like Jeter. The Yankees captain answered questions in a thoughtful manner (although we know he couldn't say what he TRULY felt on everything), and I'm pretty sure he made the Yankees organization proud to know he's worn its uniform his entire career. With that said, I would like to discuss one thing in particular from Jeter's "meet the press."

He continually tried to make the point that the time period of the mid-90s-2003 or so should not be referred to as the "steroid era," since there were roughly 1,100 players who did not test positive in 2003. While that may very well be true, what about the years when the players knew there would NOT be testing? The time period Jeter was discussing was 2003 and since, but the time period many refer to as the "steroid era" is more like 1993-2003, and unfortunately the evidence speaks for itself.

•    Mark Feinsand of the New York Daily News asked a very good question during the press conference. He essentially asked A-Rod if he thinks he deserved the monetary rewards that are in his contract for passing different home run milestones. A-Rod really didn't answer the question, I know, shocking. You were probably expecting him to say something like, "I was young and stupid, yada, yada, yada..."

But if I were on A-Rod's team of advisers, I would make absolute sure that A-Rod takes that money and donates it to charity. Whether it's to the Taylor Hooton Foundation, the RBI program, or something else, people have to know that he's not pocketing that money for his own good. If he does in fact break the all-time home run record, that's a total of $30 million in bonuses. I'm pretty sure that can go a long way to helping one or more different charitable organizations...

•    Many people "understand" why a fringe player may have taken steroids, but it's very hard to grasp why superstars such as Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, and Alex Rodriguez did so (and yes, I'm drawing the conclusion that Bonds and Clemens are guilty).

For Bonds, it was said that he did it out of jealousy. Jealous that Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa were getting all of the attention for hitting 70 and 66 home runs respectively in 1998, and yet he was the better all-around player. To me, I always thought it was because he was jealous of Ken Griffey, Jr. Junior was a member of the All-Century Team, the Player of the Decade (90s), and truly a fan-favorite, while Bonds, well, was not.

For Clemens the motivation may have been to prolong his career. It's been well documented how the then GM of the Boston Red Sox, Dan Duquette, said Clemens was in the twilight of his career following the 1996 season. Boston let him leave via free agency, and Clemens went on to win back-to-back CY Young Awards with the Blue Jays.

But what was A-Rod's motivation? We've heard him say it was the pressure he felt in trying to live up to his $252 million contract, but like Bonds, I believe there was a jealousy factor. And that jealousy was of Jeter.

Everyone knows about the Esquire Magazine article from 2001 that all but ended their friendship. The jealousy was apparent then, and I believe it's apparent now. Maybe A-Rod's motivation was to improve his statistics so much that there would be no way for people to compare the two. What Rodriguez failed to realize though, was that they were two totally different players, and stats don't always make the player.  

•    Speaking of this, remember that topic/debate in the late 90s about the Holy Trinity of shortstops (A-Rod, Jeter, and Nomar Garciaparra), and then when people began including Miguel Tejada in that discussion? For a while most people would've said that Jeter was third or fourth in that discussion based on statistics. Yet in hindsight, two of those players have been related to steroids, and a there has been much under-the-table discussion about a third. In other words, Jeter is looking pretty good in all of this.

•    You know who else is looking pretty good throughout this entire process? Griffey. People tend to forget that Griffey was on track to hit at least 700 home runs, and possibly break Hank Aaron's record. This guy was awesome (check out his stats from essentially 1990-2000), and there was never any suspicion about him. Had it not been for all of his injuries, maybe we would actually have a new clean home run king after all.

•    Undoubtedly all of this talk will bring up the conversation of which is worse, taking steroids like the aforementioned players (and several others that have not yet been named), or betting on the game like Pete Rose? Some may disagree with me, but I see it as a no-brainer...steroids.

Had Pete Rose bet on the game as a player, that would be an entirely different case. While both affect the integrity of the game, I believe that the altering of stats due to steroids is much more harmful to the history of the game than Rose's betting while a manager. That entire era (1993-2003, give or take a few years) is skewed in relation to the rest of the sport's history, and there is no way to account for those inconsistencies.