For those who saw the game today, few things went right.  The hitters were stymied by Joel Piniero, who had great movement on his pitches and rarely had the ball above the belt. He was effective; sometimes you just have to tip your cap and play another game.

On the pitching side, Javy didn’t exactly get lit up but his stuff was unimpressive and he ended up catching a loss after throwing only 5.1 innings and giving up 4 runs. Unfortunately, — and not surprisingly — boos could be heard from all corners of the stadium and certainly from living rooms and onto the screens of forums, too. This prompted quite a few at RAB to wonder when booing appropriate and to whom?

First, history clearly plays a role here. Had Javy not been such an infamous figure for his struggles in the 2nd half of the season and playoff meltdown, I don’t think he’d be facing such vitriol. Nevermind that he pitched very, very well in the first half of 2004 and had sustained an injury that he pitched through (which likely caused the ineffectiveness), things like that just aren’t forgiven for some. Such are the perils of playing in impatient New York. The passage of time is irrelevant; it may as well have happened last year.

But do fans have the right to boo? Of course, this is subjective and I don’t believe there’s a definitive answer, but that doesn’t mean we can’t evaluate when, if ever, it’s appropriate. You purchased a ticket and believe you’re well within your right to show the powers that be your wallet is upset at what it’s witnessed. I get that. But there’s a courtesy aspect to this. It reminds me of driving. Whilst in your car, you feel more protected and behave in ways you ordinarily wouldn’t if not for your steel bubble of protection. You’re stuck in non-moving gridlocked traffic. Literally nothing is moving. Yet you honk and yell at the cars in front of you. You: 1, Reality: 0.

Similarly, when the masses assemble and they all have the same rooting interests, common courtesies often dissolve. It’s suddenly fashionable to disregard perspective and become reactionary. I have a right to yell at some old lady taking too long to pay for the groceries. But that doesn’t resolve things, and rarely bears fruit for me. So what’s the point? Because I can do it, I should do it? Is that a mantra we should live by?

My personal outlook is that booing is rarely appropriate and if one were to employ such measure to express displeasure, it should be reserved for those that really deserve ire. All-Stars or players that have long, solid track records should be beyond the pale, right? The only examples I can think of are Pavano, and certainly you can argue Kevin Brown, Randy Johnson, Igawa and last year’s incarnation of Chien-Ming Wang —these players one can argue are somewhat deserving. Maybe even guys like Cody Ransom and Angel Berroa are worthy of indiscretion. Again, I wouldn’t do it, even to Pavano, but I can also understand that if you’re not meeting expectations — even meager ones — you should be open to criticism, even if booing (to me) shows crass, classless behavior.

Guys that come in and have high expectations and talent but, over the course of the season (I’ll get into that more in a bit) greatly underachieve are then fair play. Check. Got it. Guys that have never been good are also fair game. Again, got it.

What about guys like A-Rod, Jeter, Mariano, Pettitte, Teixiera, Sabathia, etc.? Have they earned the right to not face boos, as their large samples of success all but ensure they will continue to be effective players, even if they briefly struggle? And by what measure do we use to evaluate who is untouchable? I can understand (but not condone) why people dislike Rodriguez and pepper him with insults and “tough love”. He’s a polarizing figure.

But Yankee fans have actually booed Mariano Rivera (!), as hard to believe as that is. Let’s also take a look at Teix’s case: we know he’s a slow starter. It’s written in the numbers. I’m assuming virtually all Yankee fans are aware of this. Yet they still boo? He was among the top players in the league last year, even after having a very poor April. Even if you’re upset at his April performance, wouldn’t keeping quiet when he records an out or cheering him when he comes up to bat make more sense, if you in fact believe your showing of displeasure affects the player’s performance? Booing can only weigh on their psyche, right? Maybe cheering would bring better results, since you’d likely be happier if the team wins, yes? Yes?

Let’s also move to the point — and it’s an important one — that we’re still in April. There simply aren’t enough games to indicate a representative sample of how the player will do. All hitters and pitchers go through slumps. It’s the nature of playing 162 games. Is Javy Vazquez going to pitch with an ERA of 9.82 through October? Sure, it’s possible. But it’s extremely unlikely. It’s far more likely that he’ll settle in, regain his velocity (pitchers almost always regain some heat as the weather warms) and be the 200 IP, 200 K, 4 ERA pitcher he’s shown he is for virtually his entire career. Two starts of poorly-pitched ball do not mean he’s a bad pitcher. They also don’t mean he should face boos. There shouldn’t be a carry-over effect because fans are frustrated from what he did six years ago. If they’re going to do it, fans shouldn’t be booing until at least mid-to-late May, when there’s at least some sample that’s worth being analyzed.

There’s a reason Yankee fans have a poor reputation, even though there are many well-infomed, even-keeled folks that recognize the benefits of seeing the forest from the trees. You can boo Javy, A-Rod, Teix all you want, guys. But don’t expect that it benefits anyone, yourself included. You merely look like a fool that lacks higher-level reasoning skills and worst of all, class. LET’S FUCKING GO, GRANDMA!

Should he have been offered arbitration?

Over the past few years, the Yankees have elected not to offer salary arbitration to some of its aging players, instead negotiating entirely new deals or letting the player go altogether. Memorably, Johnny Damon was not offered arbitration this past Free Agency, which, had he accepted an offer, would have netted him somewhere around $15-17 million for one year and unquestionably driven the Yankees’ payroll higher than it currently is. However, we need to look at this in a larger context.

The Yankees understandably balked at paying Damon one year for the total equivalent of what he received in his contract with the Tigers ($16 mil.). However, given that under the rules Damon would have had roughly 10 days to decide if he would take a 1-year arbitration deal or decline and hold out for a longer contract, it seems fair to say that the Yankees very well could have seen Damon decline, which would have given them two top picks in the upcoming draft (under the assumption he signed with another team). If you remember, at the time, Damon was still looking for a 3-year deal at around $13 million, and his agent, Scott Boras, seems to strategically avoid arbitration with clients. Given one week to decide, perhaps he’d have signed and attempted to re-enter the market again next year; playing at YS3 certainly inflates his value. But I’d bet on him having spurned the offer. We’ll never know. Beyond the Box Score’s Dan Turkenkopf took a good look at what sorts of scenarios would mean in terms of production and economics. It’s worth a look.

The risk of paying Damon $16 million, especially as Hal is imposing a strict budget, is great, no doubt. However, possibly having four high picks in the draft could very well have boosted a Yankees’ farm system that lacks star power outside of Montero, and is especially thin on impact position players close to contributing. That’s the risk/reward aspect of this. It’s more about posturing in a game of poker than it is anything else.

The Yankees have offered salary arbitration just a few times since 2004, to Chien-Ming Wang in 2008, Bernie and Leiter in 2005, Andy Pettite in 2004 (was not offered later in the decade; a new deal was negotiated), David Wells in 2004, Aaron Small in 2006, Luiz Vizcaino in 2008 and Tom Gordon in 2006. Others to have left without being offered arb. include Jason Giambi (which would have been foolish to do), Bobby Abreu (similar situation to Damon—I’ll get more into this later), Pettitte (left the first time —would have retired or accepted the later offers), Mussina (retired—moot, but again, protection), Ivan Rodriguez (a Type-B—probably wouldn’t accept as he wanted more PT), Kevin Brown (wouldn’t have been worth the risk),  Tino Martinez (wouldn’t have accepted but Yanks had their eye on Giambi and obviously couldn’t afford both if Tino signed), Ruben Sierra (injury-plagued—would have signed), Xavier Nady (injury-plagued, would have accepted).

Most of us acknowledge that the Yankees in the past, despite having an enormous payroll, often squandered their competitive advantage by signing expensive, shoddy relievers; expensive, old and volatile starting pitchers; and position players with historic defensive ineptitude. Those days are gone, largely a credit to Cashman’s overhaul and better allocation of resources (to stars in their primes and a focus on the farm to churn out solid, cost-controlled players; the two are not mutually exclusive). However, this doesn’t mean that Cashman is great at all aspects of his job. Even the most skilled people of any profession are more capable or competent in various areas; perhaps Cashman’s is in reading the market to determine if a player offered arbitration will sign. Again, it’s a game of poker and there’s no way to know.

It would seem that Cashman, concerned with the budget, would rather lose the possibility of gaining draft picks than possibly commit $15-18 million on an aging player to a contract far above market value. There’s no shame in that strategy, as that money hampers flexibility in the short run. For instance, if the Yankees had doled out $16 million to Abreu, they probably wouldn’t have been able to sign Mark Teixiera. However, again, within the context, things may be a bit different.

To some, in 2008 Brian Cashman correctly read the market — Bobby Abreu initially had requested far more than what he was worth and teams balked — but he may have misread the situation; Abreu and his reps misread the market so much, they likely would have declined as he was holding out for more years. [Edit: Check out The Honorable Congressman Mondesi's quote on RAB for a better explanation on this.] This would have netted compensatory picks, although you could also argue that he would have been less attractive to other teams, as they may have not felt he’d be worth the money plus the loss of the pick. Still, Bobby Abreu signed for a pittance and he’s too good a player to be without a job for the entire season. Someone would have signed him and given up the pick.

I think, as THCM stresses, we need to be reminded that the player and his representatives have roughly one week to decide. A week is not enough time for them to fully scope out the market, so the team has a natural advantage. In the long term, offering arbitration and netting picks  gives the team a higher chance of developing players that can step into starting roles and provide immense value proportionate to cost, which ultimately negates some of the need to sign expensive free agents or older guys because there are no other options. Still, prospects are just that—there’s no guarantee they bring any value to the team, much less fill critical holes.

Another odd situation is with Damaso Marte, the reliever that returned from injury to dazzle in the ’09 postseason. Acquired in the trade with the Pirates along with Xavier Nady, Marte had been earning $6 million, a number he’d be close to receiving if he’d been offered arbitration. Instead, Cashman signed him to a 3-year deal at $12 million. Personally, given the general volatility of relievers, that’s a bit risky. Cashman clearly would rather not deal with a higher AAV for a year and instead, abandoned arbitration in favor of a longer deal at a smaller AAV. It’s difficult to evaluate the deal as he’s been injured and inconsistent, though his overall track record suggests Cashman picked up a good reliever for a favorable deal, why not offer and pick up top picks if he says no? You can still bid on him later or fill the hole with someone else. We don’t want to run the risk of hindsight bias, but a three-year deal for an injury-prone reliever that could have brought the team top picks seems foolish.

We’re also dealing with emotions here, as difficult to quantify as they are. We’re not privy to the knowledge that Cashman or the staff have regarding how someone like Damon or Abreu would adjust to being offered arbitration or having to negotiate a deal much lower than how they perceive their own value. They’re athletes –superstitious, prideful, and often emotional– something like a division in how the player values himself and the team values him could be divisive, which could affect performance and even the clubhouse.

Ultimately, it’s hard to be disappointed with how the Yankees off-season went — unless you think re-signing Hideki Matsui and his soon-to-be-needed Segway, along with Damon’s abhorrent defense are better moves than OBP machine Nick Johnson and legit CF Curtis Granderson — but having extra picks would have been a boon for the club, a club that often picks late in the draft and loses top picks to their own Free Agency signings. The Yankees’ aversion to risk is understandable, but a shrewd understanding and projection of the market and the player could have allowed them the flexibility to sign the big-ticket FAs while also finding long term answers in a restocked farm, which provides great flexibility over many years, even if the risk may negatively impact flexibility in the short term.

As we look forward, the starting rotation will be a key. Jeter will be offered a contract, as will Mo. Arbitration will have no place there. But looking at the 2011 rotation may be one without Pettitte and Vazquez. Javy is currently making $11.5 million per year and assuming he continues his run as an innings-eater strikeout artist, the Yankees would be wise to offer Vazquez arbitration. It’s really a win-win. He accepts and the Yankees have plugged a hole with a reliable starter at market rate. He declines and the Yankees receive compensatory picks. Pettitte’s situation remains unchanged—he’ll either sign another one-year or retire. Arbitration doesn’t do much aside from the small possibility of protecting the Yankees in the odd event he does want to play and signs with another team.

A final concluding tidbit: Joba Chamberlain was acquired in the compensatory round of the 2006 draft when Tom Gordon signed with the Phillies. I’m not saying there’s a right or wrong approach to the Yankees offering arbitration — it’s player situational — but offering arbitration more often might be well worth the risk. The long term value of some of those picks could greatly outweigh the one-year sunk cost of the player.

[Editor's Note: There have been some changes to the post, as a few of the points were essentially comments from message boards elsewhere. They should have been cited and credited; I expounded on interesting points that had come from others without acknowledging their origins, which gives the impression that I'd drummed them all up. Won't happen again. Apologies.]