Classmate-Wearing-Yarmulka gets a job and passes the bar exam

Lawyer-Wearing-Yarmulka

Wednesday, December 05, 2007

A Sports Post

It's odd. The only thing I like talking about more than law and politics is professional sports. And yet I rarely, if ever, blog about sports. Not sure why, though.

But here goes nothing:

I'm glad the Yankees aren't going to trade for Santana. Really, Really glad. Yes I am very aware of how good Santana is. He's the best pitcher in baseball. He's miles better than the #2 pitcher, whoever that may be. But I didn't want the Yankees to have to give up Hughes. He's really young, really talented, and has already shown that he can make in New York. Plus I'm always worried when bringing a new pitcher into Yankee Stadium. What if Santana can't handle New York? There's a long line of pitchers who were great but couldn't handle the pressure of pitching in the biggest market in baseball.

Now if the Red Sox get Santana, they're going to have a scary good rotation. But I'm quite ok with a rotation of Wang, Pettite, Hughes, Joba, and Moose/Kennedy.

3 Comments:

You'd have to assume Santana would be fine - no evidence of crumbling under pressure. Also, Hughes is a complete gamble at this point, even if his upside is high. It can't be higher than Santana...

And the Red Sox getting him is way worse. Also, that's not a great rotation at all.

After the Tigers' moves, the Yanks seem to be getting squeezed out of the playoffs.
Anything can happen to a pitcher once he puts on the pinstripes. Rogers, Vasquez, Brown, Weaver, Pavano, etc. Granted, none of those pitchers are/were as good as Santana, but still.

The Red Sox haven't gotten him yet. I can definitely see the Twins holding out for a deal that never happens. With Wong and Petite as your first two pitchers, you're in fine shape. Hughes and Joba aren't gambles- last year they were. This year they're not.

The Tigers scare me though.
You'd have to assume Santana would be fine - no evidence of crumbling under pressure. Also, Hughes is a complete gamble at this point, even if his upside is high. It can't be higher than Santana...

Of course not, but Santana will make over 20 million a year while Hughes will make 500,000, so the marginal dollar per win is much higher with Hughes. And Hughes is much younger, so he still has a whole bunch of peak years left, while Santana is in the middle of peak. So obviously Santana is much better now, but is it worth sacrificing all those great Hughes years in exchange for a 2-3 years of greatness? Tough call.

Add a comment