What can Pavano do for us?


Not much, says Newsday’s Jim Baumbach. The media these days really loves to doubt Pavano, but I’m not ready to hop on that bandwagon. Perhaps the oft-injured Carl can do some good for the Yankees over the next five weeks. He is, after all, pitching for a contract.

Categories : Asides


  1. Yank Crank 20 says:

    It’s a reasonable argument. Pavano barely hit 90 on the gun the other night and is coming off of a very serious arm surgery. His butt couldn’t respond quickly after soreness, so how can we rely on him down the stretch. I’d love, LOVE for him to prove me wrong but come on…how many times has he fooled us??

    • Joey H says:

      he was never a power pitcher in my eyes anyway. hes a lighter version of wang, throws sinkers to induce double plays. he did display a NASTY breaking ball tho.

  2. A.D. says:

    He can do what we need, be a 5th starter that keeps you in games, which I think is possible

  3. jsbrendog says:

    is he pitching for a contract though? with the struggles of the yankees young guns if he comes back and wins a handful of games wouldnt the yankees at least consider exercising his option? He will be much cheaper than guys like silva et all got on the open market and thinking kyle lohse makes me cringe.

    if he does well i say y not, exercise the option, hope he does well next yr and then you get draft picks fro sure cause you KNOW he won’t accept arb no matter what next yr if he’s even worth offering it to……


    it sickens me to say that if he pitches decent down the stretch he will get another mlb contract but if that what it takes for the yanx to play in October ill gladly take it

  5. ArchStanton says:

    The problem is we already have two other #5 starters in the rotation!

    Pavano did strike out 5 guys in 5 innings the other night, so hopefully he will improve in his next outing. For a first start, it wasn’t too bad at all.

    • Joey H says:

      if he can go out there and give us 6 and change innings every time out and hold down the fort with only 3 ER. then SHITTT, ill take it, the offense seems to be stepping up finally, getting big hits, moving runners over ect..

  6. Joey H says:

    all these pavano haters that are yankee fans really need to cut this shit out. if i had a dollar for every time a fan said “pavano’s back, now we know the season is REALLY over” i would be able to treat all you RAB people to a BBQ. so what? hes here! thats great, let him contribute. and what happens if he gets hurt? well, we didnt have him in the first place. unless he goes 6-0 with a 2.22 era or less and pitch the yankees into the postseason while contributing with success in october, he will be the american Idle reguardless. so bottom line: let the fucker pitch, let him work his “bottocks” off without straining them and get us into the fucking playoffs and end the tenure of the house that ruth built with a god damned championship ring!

  7. In a contract year, anything can happen. See Alex (the one formerly known as Arod but doesn’t deserve a kewl nickname) last year.


  8. ChrisS says:

    I have no problem with Pavano being in the rotation. He’s a better option than trading Melky or Gardner to the Mariners for Washburn.

    He was a sunk cost and whatever they get out of him this year is better than expected.

    There’s no way in hell his option gets exercised though.

  9. AlexWest says:

    If Pavano pitches well, I really would not mind bringing him back for the major league minimum (or close to it) the problem with Carl was that when we signed him we thought we were getting a number 2 starter (and coming off an 18 win season that was not a bad assumption), because of his lofty rotation status, his inuries and absences were compounded.

    But if we brought him back now it would be as a 5th starter (hopefully in a rotation of Wang, Joba, Pettite, Sabathia, Pavano) and as a 5th starter he’s a damn good option as he is a much superior pitcher then guys like Rasner and Ponson, and if he were injured again then your only replacing your 5th starter and you can always do that with org guys like Rasner and Ponson (or maybe Hughes or IPK if they show that they are ready)

    Another note regarding Carl’s velocity. He is coming off Tommy John Surgery, Most Pitchers claim that it takes one and a half to two years after surgery to come all the way back. so getting his full velocity back (about 93 mph) could only be a matter of time.

    One last reason we should resign Carl if he pitches well to a minimal contract, is that if we don’t Boston almost definitely will, and the only thing worse then Pavano’s performance (or lack of) with the Yankee’s would be seeing a fully healthy Carl pitching for Boston next year and beating the Yankee’s with Boston the same way he beat us as a Marlin.

    • A.D. says:

      Carl Pavano isn’t pitching anywhere next year for the major league minimum, he may have a very incentive latent contract, but it will have multiple years, and be worth millions in base salary.

      I also don’t see him as a Red Sox, they ran that experiment this year with Colon, didn’t work that well. Pavano is more likely to go to a team that needs to throw money at lack of pitching depth because they don’t have internal options, teams like the Mets, Tigers, or Mariners

      • Count Zero says:

        Agreed. He will do a lot better than league minimum — especially if he looks OK with the Yanks for the rest of the season.

      • With no Schilling, the Sox only go into 2009 with Beckett, Matsuzaka, Lester, and possibly Nosferatu Wakefield as definites, they’re not that deep. I could easily see them kicking a 2-3 year, heavily incentivized deal Pavano’s way.

        But, I could also easily see Carl shunning all the big market teams and signing on with an also-ran like Pittsburgh or Cleveland to conduct his return to relevancy far from the spotlight.

        • A.D. says:

          however they have Buchholtz, Masterson & Bowden as internal options, I’m pretty sure they want one of them in the rotation, Masterson would be in the rotation now if they didn’t have to stretch him out again/the pen was so terrible

          • Yeah, and as evidenced by the New York Yankees 2008 season, there’s clearly no way in hell that those three young pitchers could possibly fail or struggle next year, and it’s a mortal lock that none of their veteran pitchers would get injured, so obviously they’ll never ever find a single start for Carl Pavano in 2009.

            That would just be totally outside the realm of possibility, wouldn’t it?

        • ChrisS says:

          Provided Beckett doesn’t need TJS.

      • AlexWest says:

        I said major league minimum or near it, I consider a heavy incentivized contract along the same line (i.e. minimizing risk) Colon was a different case everyone knew he was washed up. Pavano has been injured but at his age and his injuries definitely not done.

        As pointed out below the Red Sox have plenty of room to include Pavano, I think that everyone can take a clue from the Yankees that relying on unproven youngsters to fill out your rotation is not a good idea. In thier worse case scenario Pavano could start the season in the rotation and if they feel they could get better production from one of thier younger guys, theyll take him out.

        Bottom line is that a team that needed to sign Paul Byrd to fill out thier rotation, and relies every year on an aging knuckle baller, probably can find a spot for Pavano.

  10. Count Zero says:

    Anything is possible. He pitched really well in his contract year at Florida.

    I will say that he looked pretty good in innings 3 through 5 the other night. One could say that he was working his way back into it and got better as the game went on.

    We’ll see how the next couple of outings look…

  11. Joey H says:

    ben on another thread it sayd mussina goes tomorrow. i thought he goes thursday and pettite tomorrow. what happened with that?

  12. Steve S says:

    I think the only criticism you could have is that he is taking up a spot for Hughes or Kennedy. I take issue with Cashman that he is not allowing Hughes or Kennedy to develop at the major league level. But if he was willing to give starts to Ponson and Rasner before these kids, then I cant complain about Pavano.

    The bottom line is that Pavano even in his 2005 form, was a good pitcher and never a dominant one. The reality that he cant actually have any kind of prolonged (even 6 starts) consistency or success is remote at best. At this point I would rather see the young kids struggle, then see Pavano and Ponson pitch in and out of trouble against mediocre offenses and get rocked by good ones. But I understand thats a difficult decision for Cash.

    • A.D. says:

      He gave starts to IPK, he’s kinda sucked them up, Hughes is still coming back from injury. Neither of those 2 has straight dominated AAA for an extended stretch this year where you could say it gives them no benefit to be there

    • pat says:

      Because we are not completely out of the playoff picture you have to go with the pitchers who give you the best chance to win. As crazy and unfortunate as it sounds, thats pontoon and pavano.

      • steve says:

        unfortunately you are correct.

        back in march i would have punched you in the kisser if you said that to me.

        • pat says:

          Can we just look at the fucking rediculousness that having to rely on ponson and pavano to propel us to the playoffs?? This shit is unreal.

          • Chris Carpenter, Jason Marquis, Jeff Weaver, Jeff Suppan, and Anthony Reyes. Ladies and Gentlemen, your 2006 World Champion St. Louis Cardinals!!!

            (Fun fact: Who opened the 2006 season in the Cardinals rotation? Everyone’s favorite fat, drunk Aruban!)

            (No, David Wells is not from Aruba.)

  13. Bo says:

    You cannot give starts at this point to Hughes and Kennedy. They havent earned it.

    • Steve S says:

      Kennedy I can agree with. But at the start of the year Hughes was for all intensive purposes our number 3 starter, as we couldnt have expected Moose’s production. If Hughes can lose his spot because of three weeks of bad pitching and an injury, then Cashman showed some very poor planning. My point is that I dont think Pavano gives that much greater of a chance to win then gambling with Hughes. Plus if Hughes struggles at least you are arguably developing him, as no matter how much time he spends in AAA, he is going to struggle in the show. These starts can be a big part of his development. I understand that its a gamble with the playoffs within reach, but to me its not as if Pavano is some kind of safe bet. he is a huge wild card. And at least Hughes has demonstrated that he CAN dominate. Pavano has never really been a guy who dominates.

      • Slugger27 says:

        intensive purposes? what does that mean? r u looking for the phrase “intents and purposes”??

        • Steve S says:

          Thanks professor, its good you could parse that out on sports blog. Maybe next time you can provide us with your fashion expertise on what the players wear in the personal life.

          • Yes, because of course, nobody should be expected to communicate clearly and intelligently on the internet, a fucking COMMUNICATION MEDIUM.

            You messed up. Be a man about it and move on humbly, instead of trying to ridicule other people for knowing something that you don’t.

            • Steve S says:

              Yes because my original point was so unclear, without his help or obnoxious correction no one could have never figured it out.

              And from now on for your benefit Ill proof my work on river avenue blues because I don’t have to do it enough at work. Its called get a FUCKING life if this is your method of communicating.

              • It’s only an obnoxious correction if you childishly take it defensively as being belittling. A reasonable person would have recognized that he made an error, apologized and/or thanked the other party, and moved forward amicably. Instead, you tried to grandstand as if he was somehow in the wrong for correcting you and foolishly tried to ridicule him for understanding basic English idioms that you clearly don’t. Stop being petty and act like a damn grownup.

                And don’t give us the “I’m too busy at work to proofread” bullshit. No amount of proofreading would have stopped you from writing “for all intensive purposes”, because every word you wrote was spelled correctly. YOU JUST DIDN’T UNDERSTAND THE EXPRESSION. It’s not a mortal sin, and neither is being called on it. Admit it like an adult and let’s move on.

                • Steve S says:

                  I moved on when I made my snarky remark. I didn’t realize I had to deal with the asshole who thinks he is the arbiter of what is appropriate on blogs. I didn’t think it was a mortal sin and Ill sleep well tonight. I just get annoyed by people, somewhat like yourself, who feel that this informal forum requires someone to patrol for the proper grammar, spelling and the use of English idioms. And you may ask me to act like an adult or man as many times as your like. But in the end you’re still a loser.

                • I don’t think I’m the arbiter of what’s appropriate on anything, I say tons of silly, flippant shit all the time. I just thought it was lowbrow, and not merely snarky, to respond to constructive criticism is the fashion you chose, so I responded to your response which was dripping with condescension and meanspirited and not simply “snarky”.

                  You’re still trying to justify jumping down somebody else’s throat by spinning the issue to make you the victim of all the evil “patrollers of grammar”. (And yes, I’m jumping down your throat for jumping down somebody’s throat. I’m justified, you’re not.) You fucked up, somebody called you on it, and now you’re pointing as many fingers at everybody else as you can. But somehow, in your infantile logic, that makes me a loser.

                  I call bullshit on it.

                • Steve S says:

                  And you just made my point, you cam on a comment that was probably a couple hours old that you had nothing to do with but because you somehow believed my response was lowbrow, you were entitled to call me out on my mistake. I have no issue with the mistake. But had he or you made one substantive remark regarding the actual content of the original post, maybe then it wouldnt have seemed like either one of you werent complete assholes. To me what you call constructive criticism, is in this forum is completely obnoxious. Its typical of a pseudo intellectual baseball fan with no athletic prowess trying to talk down to other fans. Its typical overcompensating for other short comings and really annoying.

                  And I am by no means a victim and Im not pointing any fingers, except to point out that you are clearly an asshole because in my opinion only assholes go on sports blogs and make comments solely based on the form (or lack thereof in my case) of the English used in a comment.

                  So yes, my logic with respect to you being a loser and an asshole isnt as much infantile as it is a reality.

                • Projection, Projection, Projection.


                  You: Hughes is, “for all intensive purposes”, a number 3 starter.

                  Slugger27: You mean “for all intents and purposes.”

                  You: Shutup, you stupid nerdy tightwad who is probably an effeminate, unathletic loser who watches the Oxygen network!

                  Me: Damn, yo, that was a pretty screwed up way to handle that, don’t you think? Why be a jerk about making a simple linguistic error? I mean, we are all writing English here, seems to be pretty central to what we’re doing…

                  You: You’re a loser with no life if you EVER either correct me or take issue with me berating someone for correcting me. Besides, I didn’t make any mistake, I know exactly what the right term is, I’m just really busy here at work and don’t have time to double check my entries while I’m dismantling this bomb.

                  Me: That’s a load of hot BS and you’re taking this way too defensively.

                  You: You’re a stupid nerdy book-loving asshole who thinks he’s better than everyone else. And I have a right to say whatever I want, whenever I want, always.

                  Me: Actually, you sound like an asshole who thinks he’s better than everyone else. And yes, you do have that right. Doesn’t mean you should use it. Everyone’s not out to get you. Let’s be grownups.

                  You: Yeah, well, clearly you’re a loser because you’re responding to me, so I’m rubber and you’re glue. And this is a sports blog, so if anyone responds to anything I ever say in a non-sports related way, they clearly are “pseudo intellectual baseball fans with no athletic prowess” who are probably gay French pedophiles unlike me, a good, clean, noble, sports-loving, woman-fucking American. So I win and you lose, you big loser asshole loser gay dorky librarian loser, you.


                  Your entire chain of posts on this are full of so much repression and overcompensation, it’s a little scary. I know you have good command of the English language, it’s evidenced in your vocabulary. Stop trying to defend and indefensible point.

                • Steve S says:

                  Im not trying to defend anything. I have acknowledged the fact that I made I made a mistake several times. And it seems to me that you are the one trying to make a point and in the midst of it, reading between the lines quite a bit. I’m just making one point and its rather defensible, guys who correct grammar for fun or point out others linguistic mistakes in this kind of setting are assholes. I’m not sure sure what kind of repression or overcompensation you see in that.

  14. Batty says:

    Pavano for Comeback of the Year Award!

    Imagine if he took that away from Moose?

    • jsbrendog says:

      josh hamilton has all but locked up comeback player of the year

    • radnom says:

      Its way to late in the season for that. He could make 5 more starts pitch 7-8 innings each and wouldn’t get consideration over Hamilton or Mosse.

      (not that hes going to do that)

    • Slugger27 says:

      moose? he pitched the entire year last year and was completely healthy, hes not coming back from anything ((other than a sub-par year))

      hamilton has had it locked since april

    • Batty says:

      Ahh, didn’t know it had to be back from injury – thought it was back from sucking or injury.

  15. Randy says:

    i believe in carl. for his first start, i didn’t think he looked bad. i was impressed that he really started to “pitch” after the second inning. let’s see what happens.

Leave a Reply

You may use <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong> in your comment.

If this is your first time commenting on River Ave. Blues, please review the RAB Commenter Guidelines. Login for commenting features. Register for RAB.