I must admit I am slightly worried about Xavier Nady. Almost every Yankees fan has written him in for, at worst, the number 6 spot in the batting line-up. They look at his .330 BA and his .383 OBP and .535 SLG from the first half of the year and ignore both his statistics while with the Yankees (.268/.320/.474) and his career stats (.280/.335/.458) in 7 big league seasons. I think it is foolish to assume his numbers simply replace Abreu in the outfield. I do want Abreu gone, but not if the organization thinks Nady can replace his numbers. Ideally, Nady should be the second worst hitter on the team (behind whoever is in center), but I don't think Yankees or their fans view him so low on the pecking order. Is anyone else concerned the Nady isn't really a good player? Maybe I am just being pessimistic, but I don't expect big things from the X-Factor this year. 

Whenever a team is on a winning streak, or has won 10 of 12 or 18 of 22, cynics always point the record of the teams that were beaten. In this specific case, Yankee-optimist Steve of waswatching.com pointed out the team was 22-12 since May 20th, however the Yankees are 9-0 against the Mariners, Padres and Astros. Therefore, they are essentially a .500 team otherwise, according to Steve. Excuse me? Didn't the Mets just lose 2 of 3 to these Mariners? At home? Aren't good team supposed to destroy inferior competition, and just stay afloat against the rest of the league?

Good baseball teams don't have winning percentages of .700 like the NBA. Sure, if the Yankees played every series against the Red Sox, Angels, Cubs, White Sox, Phillies, and (gulp) TB Rays, of course their record wouldn't be as good. The Yankees can't be expected to play .800 ball against the worst teams AND play .600 ball against the best, it just doesn't work that way.

I don't understand how people can complain when the Yankees (or any team) destroys inferior competition and plays around .500 ball against the top teams. Sure, throughout the season the Yankees need to be a few games over .500 against the good teams, but most of their 'games over .500' will come from sweeps of inferior opponents, and simply holding ground when they play the fellow big guys of the league.

The same goes for any team in baseball whose fans and writers complain about sweeps of bad teams. Be thankful we swept the Mariners, the Mets couldn't win the series, and lost the game Santana threw.

If Bonds does not return to baseball, it is very likely that he and Clemens will be on the same first ballot for the HOF. An early poll by ESPN had voters split relatively equally among 3 groups: Clemens in, Clemens out, and undecided, with the 'undecided' group being slightly larger than the other two. This Mitchell report clearly affects how all HOF voters view steroids. It seems as though it is going to be impossible to exclude steroid users from the HOF, because then there will be considerably fewer members from this era.

HOF voters can't simply disqualify the few people whose names have been mentioned (Bonds, Clemens, Sosa, maybe A-Rod with Canseco's new book.) If the HOF doesn't allow those whose names have been linked to steroids, but with no proof, the entire HOF process will became a sham based purely on speculation, a few eyewitness reports, and cashed checks. I think you could make the argument that Sosa and Big Mac were not HOF players before roids, and that Bonds and Clemens were, but should the HOF process really look like this?

In my mind, which is far from made up, you have to accept all of these players. I can understand not allowing someone whose entire career revolved around juice, like a Sosa or McGwire, but even that is pushing it. I hate to bring this up, but people in the US are innocent until proven guilty, and I don't think the HOF should be put in the position of speculating guilt. Something needs to be done across the board regarding steroids and the HOF. I have no concrete ideas, but understand that their process has to change. Anyone have any better ideas?

I know, I know. Many people here have been calling for Torre's head for some time, and with much good support for these claims. However, even these individuals cannot deny the amazing turn around he has produced with the Yankees. When I look around the AL this year, I see a relatively uninspiring collection of managers (as far as MOY award goes.) I don't see anything special in Scioscia's or Francona's season, and I also don't see any feel good story non-playoff teams that could produce a MOY award. The only other candidate I can see is Eric Wedge from Cleveland. I thought they were as good as dead after the Yankees took that series frorm them, but here they are in the playoffs. Also, Wedge did it without much help from Hafner and with a slightly less-than-expected year from Sizemore.

I don't need to get into what Torre has done this year, we've all seen the sloppiness/cluelessness in teh beginning of the year and then the turn-around this club made. A team written off by everyone stormed back to make the playoffs, presumabely with much help from their leader, Joe Torre. In my mind, he is the Manager of the Year in the AL. What do you guys think?

Interesting article about the Boss's role in the team's day-to-day operations, his calmer personality, and recent health issues. The article also suggests that his 2 sons may well succeed him, and that   Hank has already been spending time in the Tampa office.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2923712&lpos=spotlight&lid=tab2pos2

This is my first diary, and it has nothing to do with the Yankees, so for that I apologize. However, this story is too good to pass up. Apparently the Cardinals are considering bringing up Rick Ankiel (now an outfielder) around the All-Star Break. He is tied for the HR lead in the Pacific Coast League with 19, has 52 RBI in 57 games, and is hitting .282. I never thought we would hear from him again when he converted to an outfielder, but apparently he has developed quite nicely. As the story says, if Ankiel were to make it as a major league outfielder it would be another feel good story along the lines of Josh Hamilton. Ankiel is still only 27 and should have good years left in him if he can produce.

(scroll down the page to "Prospect Watch")
http://fantasysports.yahoo.com/analysis/news?slug=bf-skinny_061807&prov=yhoo&type=lgns&l eague=fantasy/mlb