Matthews also ignores a very important element that made those Yankee teams great.

They had one of the best rotations in MLB and could depend on a starter going 6 or 7 IP just about every night. His focus is primarily on 1996, but they won three more rings and five more pennants without the 1-2 punch of Mo and Wetteland.

Lets get this straight – Stanton, Nelson, and Mendoza were solid arms – but they were FAR from dominant. I think people tend to exaggerate or elevate their status simply because it’s a formula that helped the Yanks win.

How often was Jeff Nelson in Torre’s doghouse because he couldn’t throw strikes? Stanton’s numbers always went south in the second half. Mendoza filled several needs (setup man, long reliever, spot starter, etc) and wasn’t always consistent. And Mo had more 2-inning saves than any other closer in MLB.

But people tend to forget that stuff because they went to the World Series and won three more rings during that span.

The truth of the matter is that Stanton, Nelson, and Mendoza greatly benefited from not being overexposed because the starters were always going deep into games.

It was the starting pitching of guys like Pettitte, Cone, El Duque, Wells, and Clemens that made it all possible with Mo to close it out.

And I don’t see the Rays pondering the future of David Price whether he’s going to be a starter or reliever. It’s a stupid argument. He’s a starter who simply filled a temporary need this season the same way Joba did for the Yanks in 2007.

You don’t take high ceiling talents like Joba or Price and make them setup men or closers. That’s just idiotic. Their greatest value is always going to be in the rotation.