Whoever just came to the site a moment ago via David Pinto, congratulations! According to Sitemeter, you are the site's 100,000th page view!

I know this blog is well-ensconced in the "Adorable Rodent" section of the ecosystem. But every reader is truly appreciated. I'm only sorry I haven't been able to do better and write more frequently for all of you. Thanks for stopping by and I hope you'll all come again.

Alex Belth has been on a roll lately, with a massive selection of Yankee preview special posts. But over the weekend, he outdid himself with a four-part roundtable discussion featuring 14 star bloggers and sportswriters. Here's the first part. But do read every part of it.

My latest hiatus was, of course, the only reason Alex didn't ask me to participate. But I can provide my own answers to Alex's questions to you, my loyal readers. As a fellow Riverdalian, I'm sure Alex won't mind.

Alex's questions to his panel are in bold, and my answers/predictions are not.

Will Joe Torre be fired during the 2004 season? If so, when? If he is canned, who will replace him? Will Torre ever manage the Red Sox?

Torre won't be fired. It is difficult to imagine a scenario where the team would be eliminated from postseason consideration before the end of the season, and even if they're on the bubble as the season winds down, even George will be mindful of the risks in replacing Torre with a new manager while the team is fighting for a playoff spot. (If they don't make it, he will certainly not return next year.)

I don't see Torre managing the RedSox. I don't see him signing onto a system where the front office has such definite ideas about how to use the roster (not that Torre couldn't use the help sometimes, but never mind).

The arrival of Alex Rodriguez brings with it plenty of potential for controversy. The biggest issue of course is who should play shortstop? Though the Yankees don't have any intentions of moving Jeter right now, who do you think should play shortstop for the Yankees?

Across town, Mike Piazza has been the victim of a year-long roast by the NY media for showing insufficient enthusiasm for moving out from behind the plate, notwithstanding the fact that neither Pudge nor Posada were waiting in the Shea wings. Assuming Jeter is in fact so bitterly opposed to changing positions, why should he receive less criticism?

Nobody short of Suzyn Waldman denies the fact that A-Rod is the better shortstop. And this isn't first base; the difference between a good SS and a bad one is substantial. What kind of message is sent when one player's preference takes precedence over what's much, much better for the team?

Some baseball observers are more offended that A Rod--the better defensive player, and perhaps the best shortstop since Honus Wagner--will be asked to move positions than they are that he's joined the Yankees. Jeter is famous as a team-first player. Do you think he would ever consider moving positions, ala Chipper Jones, if it helps the team? If he doesn't, how could that change his image? In addition, what position do you think would best suit Jeter's talents?

I will assume that Jeter would move if asked, until proven otherwise. I still believe that Jeter will come up with a mysterious "injury" that has little impact on his offensive game but necessitates his move to 3B during the year. Torre & the gang are good with such face-saving injuries.

I see the argument that Jeter would not do well at 3B due to his slow reaction time. Nevertheless, I'd hide him there this year, because there's no OF spot for him now and a bad 3B will hurt the Yankees less than an bad SS. (This is especially true now that the Yankees have no lefthanded starter - especially a groundball one like Andy Pettite. And I'm on the record as suggesting the 3B move over a year ago.) After this year, I'd move him to CF, as suggested by several members of the Belth panel.

There has been a wide gap in the perception of Jeter's defense. Now that the Yankees have a superior defensive option on their roster, will the perception of Jeter's defensive reputation change?

I think the perception of Jeter's defense - always poor in the sabermetric community - had already begun to change in the larger community since the 2002 debacle against the Angels, when Jeter's glove clearly helped cost the Yankees the series. The fact that most journalists are admitting that A-Rod is better will only speed the change in perception. He can't stay at SS for long once the general perception of his defense catches up to the reality and there's a better option 50 feet away.

How much better is the Yankees bullpen this season than it was in 2003?

Better, but not by as much as people think. Assuming Gordon is healthy, Torre will not be afraid to use him. That will be the biggest change & benefit. However, Karsay is unlikely to do anything in the first half or so. I predict a massive return to earth for Felix Heredia, and Gabe White will probably have taterrific streaks which Torre may or may not allow him to work through. (Bet on "not.") More importantly, unless the Yankees get Jeter off SS and import a 2B who can catch the ball, I think Quantrill (one of the most extreme groundball pitchers in the majors) will be in the same boat as Chris Hammond was last year - pitching fairly decently but not living up to exaggerated expectations, and losing Torre's confidence as a result. And we all know what happens to relievers who lose Torre's confidence.

Will the Yankees sign Mariano to a contract extension before the end of the 2004 season? And should they?

Probably and probably - the latter because while he wouldn't be a good bet to maintain effectiveness to the end of his extension, the Yankees can afford virtually anything and his October magic is a marginal benefit that is worth the risk to this team. (I think the numbers on the extension will likely be around those proposed by Joe Sheehan, with the down market for players generally and closers particularly.)

Who will have the better season: Pettitte or Vasquez? Clemens or Brown?

Caterwauling by certain bloggers aside, Vasquez is almost certain (barring injury) to have a better season than Pettite. The Brown - Clemens question is wholly dependent on the pitchers' relative health. If equally healthy, Brown will be much better than Clemens. But my guess is that Brown will be hurt more than Clemens and contribute less as a result.

I like Steven Goldman's take on the question, though:

[D]ifferences of context – league and park and supporting personnel – make the answer dependent on more than the merits of each pitcher. What I think you’re really trying to ask is, “Did the Yankees make the right choices here?” Vazquez is already a better pitcher than Pettitte and should remain so, but that’s only germane if the choice was Vazquez or Pettitte, which it wasn’t. Whether letting Pettitte go will depend on whether the team’s estimate of his short-term injury future is accurate, and we won’t know that for awhile. Clemens or Brown wasn’t a choice either, and what he does vs. Brown is not at all relevant to the sitch in the Bronx.

Goldman is right: there's a good argument that the best combination the Yankees could have had of these three pitchers would've been Vasquez and Pettite. And if they could've done the Weaver-for-Brown swap in addition to those choices, then the Red Sox would have little chance. But it wasn't to be...

Will Mike Mussina win 20 games? If not, will he at least win 15 games again? How close is Mussina to being a Hall of Famer?

All caveats about the foolishness of the pitcher's "win" stat apply here. That said, given Mussina's health record and the likely strength of the Yankee offense, he is as reliable a bet to win 15 as there is in the game. You'd think he should win 20 one of these years, so why not now?

As for the Hall, I would absolutely vote for Mussina, and he'll have a good historical case if he has a few good years. However, the voting standards for starting pitchers seem to have toughened up noticeably in recent years (it seems to practically be a requirement to win 300 games), so I don't think he'll have much of a case unless both fo the following occur: (a) he uses the Yankees' bats to have a 24-4 season or the like, and (b) the Yankees win at least one Series with him pitching well. If either of those do not occur, I think he'll face an unjustified tough time from the BBWAA.

Do you see Jose Contreras as the x-factor in the Yankees starting rotation?

Brown is the much bigger X-factor, because of his exceptional quality and equally exceptional health issues (as Tom Verducci points out). I personally am not especially worried about Lieber; according to Will Carroll, he was ready to pitch last year and has had an extra winter to rest. I expect he'll hold up the back end of the rotation just fine. If Brown and Contreras can make 60 starts between them, the Yankees should win the division easily. I don't expect that they will.

How do you think Bernie Williams will adapt to being a designated hitter? Will Kenny Lofton's presence distract him or inspire him? How close is Williams to being a Hall of Famer? What does he need to do to qualify?

I think being a DH will be great for Williams, as it will take pressure off his knees and likely increase his hitting production. The biggest problem with him being a DH is the according necessity to have Jason Giambi in the field, with his own physical problems. Lofton's presence already seems to have inspired Williams; I doubt it will be a problem as the season goes on.

I think Williams is already a Hall of Famer, but he is unlikely to be elected by the BBWAA because of his diffuse skills and accomplishments. It is unlikely he will reach the fashionable counting milestones, but he's been better than many other players who did or will. If he has a hitting renaissance and the Yankees win another couple of championships, that might help his cause.

Theo Epstein and Billy Beane are the two most celebrated general managers in the game right now. Is there any doubt that Brian Cashman belongs in their company?

I think it's way too premature to rank Epstein in that category, though he's certainly moving up there. But whatever qualifications are due to Cashman's record due to the diffused responsibilities in the Yankee front office and their cash reserves are more than balanced out by the overall consistency and record of good moves. There's some doubt, but not much. (For what it's worth, I get the sense that the Baseball Prospectus guys talk to Cashman regularly and that he understands sabermetrics more than he lets on - meaning he's already savvier than Epstein, in that he knows enough not to let the media know what he knows.)

The Yankees have a gruff edge this season with the additions of Kevin Brown, Sheffield and Kenny Lofton. Some observers look at this team as a far cry from the Paul O'Neill Yankees. Will the new attitude help or hurt the team?

I won't bother discussing how (with the exception of the 1979 Pirates) the 1970s seemed to prove that "chemistry" was a handicap in trying to win a championship, or how Paul O'Neill was Kevin Brown with better PR. I'll instead refer to a not-quite-masterpiece of NY sports literature, The Worst Team Money Can Buy, an account of the ill-fated 1992 Mets. Aside from being an almost immediate anachronism (as the 1993 version of the team would surpass its predecessor in every category of ignominy, including losses, reporters squirted with bleach and firecrackers thrown at fans), the authors (Bob Klapisch and John Harper, then as now major NY sportswriters) made an argument that looks fairly foolosh now. I can't quote as my copy of the book is in storage, but the authors argue that a fair helping of nastiness, unpleasantness and "*^&$-you" attitude is essential to winning a World Series in NY, using the Bronx Zoo and brawling, boozing & (free-)basing 1986 Mets as proof. Maybe that particular foolish argument is due for a renaissance, replacing the equally foolish argument about how the Yankees' supposed recent harmony was the basis for their championships.

From a writer's viewpoint, is this the most interesting Yankee team since the Bronx Zoo days of the late seventies?

From a non-(professional) writer's standpoint, I think this team is far more interesting. Not just because I was a small child during the late 1970s. As previously discussed, this team is engaged in a fascinating economic experiment - attempting to use its monetary advantages and the inefficiencies of the current market to fight against the encroaching rot from within (the barren farm system & aging of core players). They're trying to fight Bill James' famous "treadmill." And if they fail, it is a bloodier repeat of 1964 or 1981. The dynasty - and a way of doing business - hangs in the balance. Personally, I find that more interesting than whether the players hate the manager. But what do I know? I'm not a sportswriter.

What are you looking forward to about the 2004 Yankees? And what are you dreading about them?

Looking forward...to Vasquez emerging as the star he already is, to (hopefully) Giambi and Williams arresting their declines, to A-Rod and Sheffield performing their magic in pinstripes, to every comeback win, every Boston game and every Mariano appearance...for starters.
Dreading...the possibility of Brown, Contreras, Giambi, Williams, Gordon and Mariano all being on the DL at the same time, and the realization that due to their barren farm system, the Yankees can do nothing to fill those holes.

Do you think the Yankees will get into a bench-clearing brawl during the regular season?

If Brown and Pedro match up, the over/under should be the 3rd inning.

****

And here are a couple of questions I though of, so I'll ask myself:

Who will be playing second base for the Yankees by midseason?

Whichever of Edgardo Alfonzo or Ray Durham the Giants are more willing to dump. I am personally hoping for Alfonzo. Yes, he's probably "29" in El Duque years and has no power left, but he still has a good OBP and is an excellent defensive 2B, and that's all they need. Plus, the ex-Met factor is too tempting for the deal not to happen; every hour of caterwauling on the "Mike & the Mad Dog" show is worth another few thousand tickets. Which leads into...

Who will be the starting pitcher acquired by the Yankees in midseason?

Al Leiter, assuming he doesn't suddenly collapse. He's a lefty and still throws reasonably hard with good breaking pitches, which will be an asset against David Ortiz and Trot Nixon (the only real problem with the Yankees not having a lefty starter). As an old pitcher on a bad contract (and a no-trade, I believe), he can probably be had cheaply (and he will almost certainly waive his no-trade for a chance at the World Series without leaving home). And Jim Duquette has (properly) not been afraid to trade with the Yankees. And this trade will drive the Mad Dog through the roof - it'll be great listening. I know Met fans would prefer to send Glavine (who has "the advantage of sucking," as well-put by a Met fan correspondent) to the Yankees, but no such luck.

Today's NYT has one of those only-in-New York-pieces glorifying the excess of (some) examples of the "bris" ceremony (and reception).

As referenced in the piece, the bris is traditionally done on the eighth day after birth (Genesis 17:12). But some people apparently are motivated to modify the tradition a little:

Rabbi Adam Mintz, who describes his congregation of 900 families at the Lincoln Square Synagogue on the Upper West Side as "modern Orthodox" and is president of the New York Board of Rabbis, said he doesn't think the world will end if a bris is postponed for the sake of the party. "Any mohel will tell you Sunday is the most popular day, and even among the Orthodox, people are choosing the date that's most popular," he said. "We have an in-house caterer, so 90 percent have it at the synagogue and 10 percent have it at home."
(Emphasis added.)

I assume that Rabbi Mintz was either misquoted or that the reporter misunderstood the import of his statement. From a halakhic standpoint, the only reason an Orthodox family could properly postpone the bris past the eighth day would be due to the baby's health concerns or the like - not merely for the sake of a party! (Priorities, anyone?)

I have a feeling that Rabbi Mintz has already lodged a complaint to Mr. Okrent or another editor at the Times, or he's getting an earful from his congregants as we blog.

(As an aside, the prior paragraph in the piece notes that some people - not necessarily Orthodox - prefer to postpone the bris for the sake of convenience, but then quotes a caterering manager giving examples of people who do the actual bris on the eighth day but have a reception at a more convenient time. That is much less problematic even from an Orthodox standpoint.)

UPDATE: Well, I was right. Rabbi Mintz has apparently circulated an e-mail, which is reproduced on Protocols. In the interests of publicizing the clarification, I will do the same:

I wanted to take this opportunity to apologize for the implications of my quote in the New York Times this morning. As you have probably guessed, as part of a longer interview, Alex Witchell asked me why Sunday has become a popular day for brises even among the Orthodox. I proceeded to explain to her when we allow for the delay of brises and the fact that the custom has developed, at least in certain circles in America, to be more flexible when rescheduling a delayed bris. Therefore, Sunday is often the day in which these brises take place.
I called Ms. Witchell and asked that a correction be printed in the New York Times. She explained to me that this was not "correction material" as there was no fact that was incorrect, only an impression that was created by the article.
I argued but did not convince her.
In the end, I am confident that Jews will not draw this unfortunate conclusion from the article and that both rabbonim and mohalim who advice parents on the timing of the bris will explain the misrepresentation of my quote.
May the spirit of ve-nahafoch hu transform this unfortunate episode into an important lesson for us all.
A freilechen Purim

Adam Mintz

(Emphasis added.)

So Rabbi Mintz's statement only referred to flexibility in rescheduling a bris when a delay had already been necessary for other reasons - not simply a matter of picking a more convenient time for a party. That's a much more accurate statement.

ANOTHER UPDATE: The Times has issued a correction:

An article last Wednesday about the growing trend among American Jews to celebrate the circumcision ritual of the bris outside the home or synagogue and with increasing elaborateness included a quotation from Rabbi Adam Mintz of the Lincoln Square Synagogue in Manhattan that referred imprecisely to his attitude about the timing of the rite, ordinarily carried out eight days after birth. He says that in remarking, "Sunday is the most popular day, and even among the Orthodox, people are choosing the date that's most popular," he did not intend to suggest that a bris could be postponed for the sake of holding a party at a convenient time — but rather that if it had to be delayed on justifiable grounds, there might then be flexibility in scheduling.

Go wish Allison Kaplan Sommer a mazal tov on her pregnancy. But be very, very scared of one reason she gives for her decision:

MORE LINKS AND HITS. I mean, why do we bloggers do ANYTHING? I figured that all of the congratulations and comments are good for a few notches on the Ecosystem. And nothing I write seems to merit an Instalanche. Maybe procreating will do the trick.

The scarier thing is that after you've blogged for a while, the argument seems reasonable...

So what does it mean?

We are dealing with something perhaps mentioned in economic textbooks but rarely encountered in real life: an entity with infinite financial resources. Not literally, of course, but when the Yankees are willing and able to spend twice as much as any other team, the practical differences between the hypothetical and the reality are slight. And where the Yanks formerly had advantages over other teams in brainpower and a deep farm system, those have, respectively, eroded (due to the spread of Beane-ball-think) and withered away to nothingness (thanks to trades and bad drafting). So the Yankees have had to rely on their financial advantages more than ever. Fortunately for them, the current marketplace is presenting unique benefits to such financial advantages.

The A-Rod deal exposes certain ramifications of the Yankees' exclusive financial status:

1) A year ago, Will Carroll wrote that as other teams learned not to throw millions of dollars at relievers, non-star regulars and other unworthies, the Yankees' financial dominance would cease to be a competitive advantage and might even begin to work against them. (He wrote this in the Yankees' 2003 "Team Health Report" for Baseball Prospectus; I'd link to the piece, which you wouldn't be able to read anyway without a subscription, if BP's website archives had been updated since the beginning of 2003. Guys?)

It sounded plausible, and may yet prove accurate in the long term. But in the short term, the effect of the Yankees' financial exclusivity has been exactly the opposite of what Carroll predicted. As his BP colleague Joe Sheehan pointed out even before the A-Rod deal:

The willingness the Yankees have to assume contracts is such a huge advantage over just about every other team in baseball that any hole that develops, they can probably fill. It actually doesn't matter. If George Steinbrenner decides he wants to go out and assume a contract, he can fill a hole, even if Jeter goes down, Soriano, Posada, the Lofton/Williams platoon in centerfield. I honestly think that we may be seeing a perpetual success machine... I now realize money simply isn't going to be an object. With so many teams willing to give up contracts regardless of the talent they get back, the Yankees are in a great position.

In a market that is a) deflationary and b) characterized by teams that are unwilling/unable to spend money on players, there is no shortage of contracts that seemed reasonable when signed, and where the players are actually delivering value, but the teams nevertheless are looking to dump (or, in the case of free agents, feel unable to pay in the first place). In that market, the team free of such financial constraints is king.

And if the Yankees really have no financial constraints, then financial efficiency becomes irrelevant - value added on the field is the only concern.

2) The problem with building a team solely through free agents has nothing to do with "chemistry" or some other virtuous benefit imparted via the farm system. The problem is that historically, most players who hit the free-agent market are on the downside of their careers, and thus are unlikely to be valuable parts of a championship team several years after their signing. And historically, star players in or approaching their prime are rarely available via trade.

But things change. What if, due to financial straits (self-imposed or otherwise), stars in or approaching their prime are widely available via trade or free agency to anyone willing to pay the freight? From the a) perspective of a team that has the wherewithal to acquire such players and b) needs to win now due to existing age concerns, which is a riskier strategy - trying to develop new stars through the farm system, with the according uncertainty risks, or acquire those players who are already stars yet are likely to retain their value? The Yankees have turned their only good young players into...players who are just about as young (exactly so, in the A-Rod / Soriano case), but much better. And Vlad the 28-Year-Old-Impaler was also available.

A commenter on Baseball Crank opined that "it's as if Steinbrenner uses the majors as his own farm teams." That's exactly right. Another way of putting it is that the Yankees are outsourcing player development to the other teams - they're letting those teams take the risks of developing stars in the belief that they can obtain such stars, once developed, at less risk.

No, I don't like it either. But I can't say it's irrational, given the system and the Yankees' current needs. (And one could also blame the unwillingness of other clubs to spend past the luxury tax threshhold. But I digress.) And more importantly, it might even work (as Sheehan pointed out). Bill James famously compared the Yankees of the late 80s to a team on a treadmill, constantly buying short-term solutions due to their inability to produce younger replacements from the farm system (or to trust the potential replacements that were produced). Most people assume the problem was in the buying itself, but the real issue was with the products bought. If the Yankees can buy stars aged 26-28 rather than 33-35, the war with the treadmill may be won. I'm still skeptical for the long term, but hope to be proven wrong.

Since the Boston deal fell through, I've been predicting the Yanks would get A-Rod. I never put it on the blog, but I have e-mail proof.

It was just too perfect to not happen:

1) A few years ago, I was in Hong Kong for a Shabbat. The synagogue there is affiliated with a communit center massively well-endowed by certain philanthropists from about a century ago. That kind of financial freedom enables it to do strange things, such as what was recounted in the following story I heard that weekend: Apparently some VIP from the synagogue was away for the summer, and someone from Israel had been retained to serve in his stead. The Israeli imports were supposed to stay at the VIP's home, which was vacant except for the VIP's housekeeper. Said housekeeper was apparently unhappy about the prospect of other people staying in the home, and made her unhappiness well-known. Rather than trying to negotiate a solution with the housekeeper, the synagogue decided it was more efficient to rent hotel accomodations for the Israelis. For the entire summer. In a not-especially-cheap hotel.

Questions of "value" and "efficiency" are answered differently by the massively-wealthy than by you and me. If you want to move Captain Derek "Mr. Clutch" Jeter off his beloved shortstop position - a move which virtually all objective observers believe should happen sooner rather than later - you might try raising the matter frontally (and simultaneously raise a ring-counting storm) and then worrying about whom to replace him with. Or, you might go for the only politically correct way to do so: introduce him to his more expensive former friend. If you have the resources for the latter...

2) More on this later, but the Yankees have positioned themselves as the Option of Last Resort for teams looking to dump large contracts. That position enables the Yanks to drive a better bargain than might otherwise be apparent. As has been noted, the Yankees are adding less than $2 million in salary for this year with A-Rod, and they sold almost $5 million in tickets in the few days after acquiring Rodriguez. They can not only afford A-Rod, but can turn him into further profits.

3) Finally, who can underestimate the "sticking it to the Red Sox" factor? While it is true that A-Rod probably only improves the Yankees by a couple of games over Soriano (especially if A-Rod doesn't remain at SS), those couple of games might be the difference between the two teams. And that's to say nothing of the satisfaction gained by evoking reactions like the following:

My favorite phone call came from my buddy Hench, who was attending a wedding back East. When someone casually told him the news, poor Hench was done for the rest of the reception. His legs buckling under him, he stepped outside for fresh air, pacing in 30-degree weather like a maniac, finally leaving a 90-second message on my machine that featured 20 swears, three tirades and a climactic 10-letter expletive about Gene Orza. Happy Valentine's Day.

The last time so many factors lined up this conveniently, Roger Clemens became a Yankee. It was easy to predict a similar result this time.

It's now time to rationally assess the Yankees' winter, as opposed to previous emotional squeals. It's a lot easier to do so after the A-Rod acquisition, but that's far from the whole story.

With the exception of the Kenny Lofton signing, every move the Yankees made this winter was at least defensible from a baseball standpoint. Assuming health (more on that later), Vazquez and Brown will probably surpass Pettite and Clemens' performance. Even the choice of Sheffield over Vlad the Impaler can be defended on purely baseball grounds (most notably by Lee Sinins in his e-mail newsletter), even aside from the relative injury risks of the two. And I hated to lose Nick Johnson, but: a) barring a discovery of the Paul Molitor Fountain of Health, it's reasonable to assume that he'll never be healthy enough to play a full season, and b) the team could hardly obtain a better yield than Vazquez. And emotionally, good riddance to David Wells. (Logically is another story, as discussed below.)

As Billy Beane might say, the problem is in the aggregate. The net result of the Yankees' moves - even including the A-Rod heist - is to accentuate certain vulnerabilities in a fairly predictable way. The age factor is the most obvious, but the injury and defensive factors are more important.

1) The loss of Johnson means that Giambi will be asked to play first base regularly on his disintegrating knee (and it's unlikely that Travis Lee will be enough of an inducement to Torre to give Giambi the rest he needs) - which is not likely to help matters.

2) It's clear that the Yankees believed Pettite's elbow is unlikely to hold up over the length of his contract. They have a fairly good record with such predictions (see: Jack McDowell, Jimmie Key - but Jeff Nelson defied such doomsaying), but Kevin Brown is not exactly a better bet, health-wise. And the loss of Wells means that for now, the Yankees do not have a reliable extra starter for the inevitable injuries to Brown or other starters. (They are already getting scared over a groin injury to Jon Lieber and a back injury to Jose Contreras.)

3) And not to beat a long-dead horse, but with the addition of Brown, Quantirll and Lieber, the Yankees need infielders who can field the grounders those pitchers will yield. Yet as Steven Goldman wrote before the A-Rod deal, the Yankee infielders "don't view fielding grounders as part of their job." And putting a Gold Glove shortstop at 3B while leaving one of the worst-fielding shortstops in baseball at SS won't help matters. Do the Yanks have a defense attorney on staff for when Kevin Brown tries to assault the captain after a few grounders "past a diving Jeter for a base hit?"

Yet these problems could be solved. I expect both El Duque and Al Leiter to be on the Yankees before too long (more on the latter later). And the inevitable switch of Jeter and A-Rod (which I still think will come before year's end), couple with the team's likely acquisition of a good-fielding second baseman, will help the infield defense enough. And have we mentioned that the Yankees have A-Rod?

More to come.