The Final Score

JIM: Teixeira is not the answer

The biggest reason the Yankees' 2008 season turned out as it did was because of their mistakes of the past, namely putting all of their focus of signing 30-year-olds to long and massive contracts.

I completely agree that they need to create a room in the new stadium filled with hundred dollar bills and tell CC it's all his in exchange for his autograph on a contract. But why do the same with Teixeira?

Yes, the Yankees need a first baseman. And, yes, Teixeira is far and away the best available. But the Yankees need to remember they don't need superstars at every position to win. They need pitching, pitching, pitching and more pitching. And then worry about the rest.

So what to do about first base? No easy answer, I'm afraid. If the Mets pick up Carlos Delgado's option and trade him, as I think they should, he would be a great fit. But the Mets won't trade him to the Yankees. Another guy who would be a good fit is Mike Lowell, who would be expendable if Boston signs Teixeira. But the Red Sox also wouldn't help the Yankees.

So maybe they have to go the route of a Kevin Millar or Sean Casey for a year. Also, keep in mind, we have no idea how Jorge Posada's shoulder is going to be for the next three years. Maybe it's shot, even after surgery. To some degree the Yankees need to have a landing spot ready for him, and first base could be the answer.

So, as you see, this is not an easy one. But as good as Teixeira is, I believe the Yankees need to use that money for pitching and think about first base another time.

ANTHONY: Sometimes life's big mysteries aren't all that mysterious

I just have to shake my head.

Here's what I think about the Yankees and Mark Teixeira. It's an analogy:

You need $10 but you don't have it. You can maybe scrape together $4 or $5 and that will get you through the day, but you really need $10.

You walk outside and on the ground is a $10 bill.

Do you bend over and pick it up? Or do you keep walking?

That's what keeps happening to the Yankees. Last offseason, they need a No. 1 starting pitcher, and the Twins drop Johan Santana on the ground in front of them. All they have to do is bend over and pick him up.

They don't. They keep walking and try to get by on $4.

Now, the Yankees have a massive, gaping hole at first base. Is it their No. 1 priority? No, pitching is. But they are the Yankees. They can afford to go after both pitching and a first baseman.

They need a first baseman and free agency drops Mark Teixeira on the ground. Teixeira, who will be 29 in April and last season hit .308 with 33 HRs, 121 RBIs, 97 BBs and is a Gold Glove-caliber defender.

Do I give Teixeira 10 years and $200 million? Of course I don't. I wouldn't have give A-Rod 10 years, but that's another debate. Annual dollar values mean nothing to me, because a) they always go up with the next contract and b) the Yankees have enough of your money to spend whatever they want.

As Davidoff suggested here, the Yankees can afford to monitor the Teixeira sweepstakes and swoop in if there's an opening. The Angels or Orioles want to give him 10 years? Let them.

But if the Yankees can get him for five years and $120 million or something, then they need to do it. He's a very good player, in his prime, and the Yankees need more of those.

Let's say the Yankees offseason haul is Sabathia, Teixeira, Derek Lowe and either Pettitte or Mussina. Expensive, but possibly enough to make them a playoff team again.

One in a series of debates about issues facing the Yankees and Mets this offseason.

JIM: NO TO K-ROD

Call me a politician, but I've officially changed my mind on the Mets signing Francisco Rodriguez. At first I was all for emptying the bank and throwing all the money at K-Rod, and I said as much on this blog. But a few weeks have passed, I thought about it some more and now I just don't think there's enough certainty he's going to be worth it.

Let's look at it this way: it's pretty clear he's going to get a four-year deal, at least, maybe five years. He'll only be 27 years old on Opening Day. So that is a big advantage. But at the same time closers don't have much of a shelf life. That's been proven time and again.

Everyone talks about the 62 saves he compiled this year, and that is remarkable in its own right. But a far more telling stat for relievers is WHIP, and his WHIP has been steadily going up pretty much since his rookie year. This year he had a 1.29 WHIP, meaning he allowed a staggering 88 hits and walks in 68 1/3 innings. That's a lot of heartache during those ninth innings. Plus, there have been reports of his velocity falling, and he also has had a few run-ins with the SoCal media over the years, which won't translate here in New York.

So, there, I'm against K-Rod.

But now what? Good question. Without another clearcut closer available, and I don't consider Brian Fuentes in that category, I think the Mets need to go about this offseason looking to improve their bullpen, top to bottom. That means getting rid of Heilman, Schoeneweis and Sanchez, and replacing them with a whole bunch of candidates. Go to spring training with 10 guys vying for the bullpen and hope three come through with big seasons. Need a big name? Trade for J.J. Putz.

Look at the Rays. They signed Troy Percival, traded for Dan Wheeler and found a mix of guys in J.P. Howell, Grant Balfour and Trent Miller. Same with the Phillies. They took a relatively low cost risk on Brad Lidge. The Mets need to think along those lines.

ANTHONY: K-ROD NOT THE ONLY OPTION . . . JUST THE BEST ONE

You might have noticed the Mets didn't make the playoffs because, in part, they didn't have a closer once Billy Wagner went down.

You might have also noticed the Phillies made the WS with a hot closer (Lidge) and the Rays made the WS with a closer-by-committee system and a rookie with seven big-league apps. closing out Game 7 of the ALCS.

So you don't have to have a lights-out closer to make it to the WS.

The Mets have to build a whole bullpen this offseason, not just add a closer. But I'm a little suspicious about the anti-K-Rod whispers that have been cropping up ever since the idea of the Mets signing him gained traction once Wagner went down.

I would bet Omar Minaya would be happy to throw the money at K-Rod and live with the declining back years of the deal, just like he did with Pedro. But Mets ownership probably doesn't want to spend that much money on a closer.

But they cant just come out and say that, not going into a new ballpark. So the Mets have to start a whisper campaign about how K-Rod isn't really as good as he seems, and his motion is so violent, and a million other little things in an effort to get their fan base to think they are right to not spend on him.

Look, if your scouts say K-Rod's not worth it, then don't sign him. I hope the Mets had someone following K-Rod around so they could make their own determination about his worth.

But if Omar thinks he's the best option, and all it will cost is money, then the Mets owe it to their fans to be at the top of the list in pursuing him. Make an offer and see where it goes. They signed Wagner for four years and got 2 1/2 years out of him. But he wasnt 27 when he signed, and he wasnt as good as K-Rod is now.

Sometimes the solution to a problem is really simple and we as humans muck it up by thinking too much. If the Mets don't get K-Rod -- fine. Then go to Jim's Plan B.

But not before.

ANTHONY: No. They should make him Joe Girardi's bench coach

The Yankees have a coaching-staff opening and former Mets manager Willie Randolph is sitting home collecting Fred Wilpon's paychecks for not working. Some have suggested Willie could end up replacing the fired Bobby Meacham as the Yankees' third-base coach. I say that job is not big enough for him.

Randolph should be hired as Girardi's bench coach with Rob Thomson moving to third-base coach. Does this mean Randolph would be seen as a manager-in-waiting, making Girardi uncomfortable?

Yes. And good.

Girardi needs to be made uncomfortable next season. He needs to be pushed to do a better job. He needs to know that he has serious deficits that were exposed this past season and that the Yankees cannot wait for a manager to grow into the job as much as he seems to need to do. The Yankees need a manager who can get the most out of his players. Did Girardi do that in 2008? I think we'd all agree no.

Is Randolph that guy? Well, if Randolph learned the lessons from his time as Mets manager, he might be. Randolph is no great communicator, but remember he did get his team to within a few outs of the World Series in 2006.

I saw Randolph at the Yankees' final home game and he seemed so much more comfortable in Yankees pinstripes than he ever did in the Mets' jersey of the day. And that slide into second base during introductions! I loved it. And I wondered where that personality was when he managed the Mets.

The best-case scenario for the Yankees is for Randolph's presence to help push Girardi to be a better manager and then get a job himself in 2010. But if Girardi stumbles next season, turning the team over to Willie in July wouldn't be the worst thing.

JIM: Makes no sense for anyone

So if you're Willie Randolph and the Yankees offer you the third-base coaching job for $300,000, or whatever coaches make these days, why would you consider that when you can sit home for a year and get paid $2.25 mil by the Mets while watching Dr. Phil.

Makes no sense. Unless some team wants him to be their manager (no chance), he would be crazy not to sit out the year and take free money. Baseball will still be around in 2010, and there will be plenty of major-league coaching jobs available.

Now, from the Yankees perspective, let's say Willie is interested. Why in the world would you even consider bringing him back?

A. He's already proven himself to be way too sensitive to be a manager in New York, so it's not as if you would be grooming him for the manager's job someday.

B. Sure, he was a fine third-base coach, but by no means was he the equivalent of Larry Bowa, who is the best in the biz.

C. All you're doing is bringing in a major distraction. I like Anthony's reasoning that Girardi needs to be made uncomfortable, and I agree with that. But that's why Cashman fired Bobby Meacham and will replace him with a non-Girardi friend. Put simply, for '09, Willie has far too much baggage left over from the Mets to be on the Yankees staff.

Invite him to Old-Timer's Day again. Have him take part in opening ceremonies of the new Yankee Stadium even. Make him a part of the 'Yankee family' again, if you will. But coaching staff? No way, and that goes for both sides.

Throughout the baseball offseason we’ll be looking at different positions of need on the Yankees and Mets and offering our opinions on what the teams should do.

Today: the Yankees’ centerfield situation.

ANTHONY: GARDNER HAS GROWN ON ME

Let me kick off our first Hot Stove Debate by admitting that I was wrong about Brett Gardner. I thought he was nothing more than a 2008 copy of Jason Tyner. All speed and nothing else.

Well, after seeing him play, here are the things that I think will make Gardner an effective platoon centerfielder for the Yankees in 2009:

He has good plate discipline and should walk enough to compensate for a .250-.270 batting average, especially from the nine-hole; he is a tremendous defensive outfielder; he seems to have a knack for tough at-bats; his speed is a true weapon and the Yankees really need it.

Deficits? Well, they are obvious. No power. Might hit .210 instead of .250. Not a good bunter (which is an amazing failure of the Yankees’ minor league instructors. How can this guy not know how to bunt?)

I would start the season with Gardner in a platoon with a righthanded hitter. Maybe a veteran such as Jay Payton. Or even Melky Cabrera if he can get his act together.

Gardner will get the bulk of the at-bats. If he pans out, then you’ve got a replacement for Johnny Damon at the top of the order for 2010. If not, you move on to Austin Jackson or someone from outside.

I see Gardner as a big test for Joe Girardi. Girardi was supposed to be the guy who could reach the young players and make them better, remember? Well, he went 0-for-2008 with Melky, Cano, Hughes and Kennedy. They all took steps back.

Girardi is supposed to really like Gardner. Well, Joe, here’s your chance. The Yankees don’t need him to be a star. But they should give him first crack at centerfield.

JIM: NO IN-HOUSE ANSWER

Hey, I like Brett Gardner, too. But not if I was building a team and looking for a starting centerfielder. Melky Cabrera, this goes for you, too.

These are both fine backup outfielders. They both are plus defenders with strong arms, and Gardner has incredible speed, as well. But neither is the answer for centerfield, and I think the Yankees know that.

That's why the second priority of this offseason, behind improving the rotation, is finding an answer to centerfield.

The Yankees have already ripped off Pirates general manager Neal Huntington once - in the Nady/Marte deal - so maybe they can grab Nate McLouth off their hands, too? If it takes Robinson Cano, so what? Replace him with free-agent Orlando Hudson. McLouth, by the way, had 76 extra-base hits this year - that's more than any Yankee player.

Or perhaps they could sign Mike Cameron to a one-year deal (if the Brewers don't pick up his $10 million option) to buy themselves some time to find a long-term answer?

But McLouth and Cameron are on opposite ends of their careers, but there's no debating this fact: they are established major-league centerfielders, no doubt about it. Gardner and Cabrera are nice players - as backups.

*************************************************

What do you think, Yankee fans? Go with Gardner or go outside?

This debate is drawn right from Baumbach's column in today's paper.

Here are some excerpts:

JIM: Support your team, Mets fans!

Mets fans, we know the reason why you have short fuses: memories of The Collapse are way too fresh. But you know what? Even in the wake of what happened Wednesday night, it's time to let that chip on your shoulder go, at least temporarily, because if you're not going to completely support your team at this juncture of the season, why bother supporting them at all?

You know why there's reason to be positive this morning? Because even after the worst loss of the season, the Mets are still tied with the Brewers for the wild card, meaning if the season ended Wednesday night there would be a play-in game Thursday.

Tell me you wouldn't have signed up for this situation -- including the road that it took to get here -- back on June 13 when the Mets were in fourth place and 71/2 games back.

Another gripe with Mets fans: Where are you?

Although Wednesday night's crowd was lively and boisterous during big moments, most notably in the pitches leading up to Carlos Delgado's grand slam in the third inning, there were still empty seats riddled throughout the upper deck.

That makes absolutely no sense. Your team is playing for its postseason life. Your stadium is in its final days. With the Yankees now an afterthought, the city is all yours for the taking.

Thursday night, it's game 159, the start of what essentially is a four-game season. It's time to decide whether you're with the Mets completely, or not at all.

ANTHONY: Fans have every right to boo whenever they want

Think about it: If you go to see a movie you don't like, you can't boo. Bad Broadway play? Can't boo. Bad meal? No booing the chef. Boss gives you a hard time? Have to grin and take it.

But when you pay $30 or $40 or (coming next season) $2500 to see a baseball game, you are allowed to boo. The opposing team. The umpires. The bad National Anthem singer. The hot-dog guy.

So to expect Mets fans NOT to boo when their team blows a 5-1 lead, or falls behind, or fails to get men home from third base, or loses the game in the 10th, or when Luis Castillo peeks his head out of the dugout to see if it's raining -- well, that's just not fair.

Mets fans are supposed to support their team no matter what? Where are we, St. Louis? Watching high school volleyball? You don't get A's in New York for trying hard.

I enjoyed reading your column, Jim. But I think you're way off base. And this is for you:

Boooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.

ANTHONY: Yes.

JIM: Yes.

NORM: I like Bobby Jenks.

Seriously, I have little doubt the Mets will end up with K-Rod next season...

MLB officially used instant replay last night for the first time, so what better time to discuss its merits - and whether it should be used on plays other than home runs.

ANTHONY: It’s a slippery slope . . . so let’s slide all the way down!

I loved the first use of instant replay. It was quick and efficient and they got the call right.

Someone called it a “slippery slope” – meaning, we’re all going to slide to our demise if replay is used or even expanded.

To which I say: p’shaw.

Technology usually enhances our lives. Trust me, I’m not a gadget person, but I can’t imagine living without my Blackberry. Or my DVR. Or my Facebook account, even though every body is now on Facebook and it’s kind of getting cluttered.

Instant replay is too much? I say it’s not enough.

If you have the technology, use it. Use replay for everything except balls and strikes. Where’s the romance in a guy being called out at first base when he’s clearly safe? Have someone sitting in a room in New York beep the umpire and overturn the call. How long will that take? A few minutes? Isn’t that worth it to get the call right?

Football hasn’t been ruined by replay. Games aren’t any longer than they used to be. People still watch/bet.

Use the technology.

You know how I know I’m right? Ken Davidoff agrees with me. And that doesn’t happen often.

JIM: Instant replay works for home runs, but that's it

I think Major League Baseball got it right on this one. An umpire messing up a home run call has a direct and immediate impact on the game, and without a doubt baseball should go to every length possible to make sure umpires get those calls right.

Jeffrey Maier, anyone?

But, sorry Anthony, but I don't see the merits of including instant replay on anything and everything. You have to draw the line somewhere, because if you don't before long you'll have managers calling for instant replays of a checked swing. And you know they would.

(Cough, cough, Tony LaRussa, cough, cough).

Besides, we already have games lasting more than three hours each night. No reason to extend the play for no good reason. Use it to get the home run calls right, and we can all sleep well at night.

But if you really, really want to expand instant replay, I see only one way: do it like football does. Each manager gets one chance every game to fight a call with the use of instant replay. If he proves to be right, great. But if he proves to be wrong, he loses his instant replay rights for the next three games.

A little tedious? Yes. So let's just leave it the way it is.

And yet, there are apparently a lot of those people.

As a great blogger once said:

Sigh.

I told you he was going to stay retired.

I know what Jim is going to say: There's still a chance he could come back later in the season.

Unlike the Rieber/Baumbach predictions contest, we don't keep track of who wins the debates. They are more of a public service.

Oh, and I plan to do a Rieber/Baumbach predictions contest standings update later tonight. We may have a new leader!!!