No, this isn't a rant trying to advocate Edgar Martinez for the Hall of Fame.

The scuttlebutt around the New York Yankees since the end of the season has focused squarely on the futures of Hideki Matsui and Johnny Damon.  It's interesting, almost comical really, to think that there is any question about whether the Yankees should pay for the continued services of these aging players.  I, myself, was advocating the quick jettison of both of them previous to the 2008 season and, while Damon happily proved me wrong, Matsui suffered knee problems that limited him to 93 games.

The problem with both players is that they're old by baseball standards.  Both men will be aged 36 for the 2010 season, neither has the legs nor the arm to be effective in the outfield, and both carry the possibility of receiving multi-year offers from other teams.

At least, that's how it's been perceived in the past.  Last winter opened many eyes around baseball as players and teams alike tried to navigated the turbulent waters surrounding arbitration.  The Yankees were widely questioned for not offering Bobby Abreu arbitration, which would have given them another first round pick should he sign with another team.  As the market shook out and Abreu's value plummeted, the Yankees began to look smarter and smarter for not leaving Abreu open to a $15 million arbitration award when the market earned him just a one year contract at $5 million.

It shouldn't be that shocking, then, that the Yankees have repeated this approach, deciding not to offer arbitration to Johnny Damon, Hideki Matsui, and Andy Pettitte.  In Matsui's case, the decision was a no brainer: Matsui is neither a type A or B free agent, leaving the Yankees no compensation should he sign elsewhere.  The better gamble is to risk signing him under agreeable terms than to leave the dollars to a third party.

Andy Pettitte is just Andy Pettitte.  The pattern has been established that Pettitte will deliberate and waffle over whether he wants to play, claim it's not about the money, complain about the money, then sign for less guaranteed than he did the previous year.  Last winter, it worked out for everyone as Pettitte signed for a guaranteed $5 million after having arm problems down the stretch, but reach almost of his $5 million in incentives, reaching the $10 million price tag he asked for in the first place.

Damon, however, is a type A free agent coming off the best season of his career with a salary of $13 million.  A quick read of the market, even by Scott Boras, could determine that Damon stands little chance of matching $13 million next season and certainly not for multiple seasons.  An arbitration hearing could earn Damon a raise, possibly bringing him to $14 or $15 million which would be well above market value and even above his theoretical value for the 2009 season.

The question that remains is whether the Yankees should sign Matsui and/or Damon or none of the above.  The theory floated out there in September argued that the Yankees couldn't possibly carry both players again.  Matsui has no ability to t play the outfield anymore and Damon is such a bad outfielder that he probably shouldn't play the outfield anymore.  Essentially, they cancel each other out as being older, poor fielding players on the cusp of decline, exactly the kind of player you don't need two of on your roster.

This theory has only been bolstered by another concept: the designated hitter by committee.  As the Yankees start to get a bit older, especially in the case of catcher Jorge Posada and to a lesser degree Derek Jeter and Alex Rodriguez, the call has come for more rest.  To keep their bats in the lineup, one of the elders could get a half day off and DH rather than ride the bench.  Since the DH role would be filled mostly by position players, the theory goes, there would be little need for a player like Hideki Matsui.

This is a ridiculously flawed concept to me.  From a sheer strategical standpoint, it makes little sense to have Jorge Posada DH while the backup catcher is behind the plate, unless you carry a third catcher.  That seems like a waste of a roster spot for the small percentage of games that Posada would actually DH, assuming that he will have off days where he doesn't hit.

From a mathematical standpoint, the amount of needed days off by those players does not amount to a full-time designated hitter.

Alex Rodriguez missed the first 28 games last season and finished the year having played in 124 games.  That means outside of his time on the DL, ARod missed 10 games.  And remember, he missed ten games after having hip surgery that was supposed to require consistent rest throughout the season, rest he rarely took.  Assuming a healthier ARod for 2010, it's reasonable to think he will play in roughly 145-150 games.

Jorge Posada missed 22 games in May of 2009 with leg problems.  He went on to catch 96 games, which means he may have caught another 16 games had he stayed healthy.  Let's say Posada would have caught 112 games, leaving 50 to be accounted for.

Derek Jeter played 153 games in 2009.  He played 150 in 2008 and 156 in 2007.  In fact, he's averaged 151 games a season since becoming a full-time player.  If Derek Jeter is healthy in 2010, I'd be willing to bet he's going to play at least 150 games again.

Between these three players, we've found about 79 games that we can reasonably expect them not to be playing the field and possibly slot into the designated hitter's role.  That leaves 83 games to account for, just over half a season.

Filling those 83 games at DH requires one of two solutions: drop a bench player into the DH slot or put that bench player in the field and put a position player at DH.  The Yankees bench in 2009, not including Hideki Matsui, had a .305 on-base percentage.  They had a .364 slugging percentage.

Hideki Matsui had a .367 on-base percentage and a .509 slugging percentage.  Despite being a left-hander, Matsui posted great numbers against lefties:

It may seem unreasonable to expect Matsui to hit as well against lefties in 2010 but considering his low BAbip, there is every reason to think he will not suffer a big drop off.  There is the outside possibility he could hit even better.

The difference in offense between Hideki Matsui and the Yankee bench in 2009 is considerable.  If the Yankees do not re-sign Matsui for 2010, where do they pick up that offense?  Where are the Yankees going to find a power hitting backup catcher or infielder that can replicate the type of offense that Matsui has provided?

Obviously, they're not because any player providing that type of offense at those positions won't be riding the pines while making backup wages.

Given the caliber of the Yankees lineup, residing in the American League where pinch hitting has less need, the Yankees shouldn't be wasting a position devoted solely to hitting on backup players.  By not re-signing Matsui, the Yankees would be conceding at least one spot in their lineup each game, whether it be to rest ARod and play a Jerry Hairston, Jr. type or their everyday lineup which likely wouldn't have a league average or above bat at designated hitter.

These leads to the inevitable question about who should be re-signed, Matsui or Damon.  In my mind, I think there is room for both given short term contracts.  I wouldn't want to sign either player for more than two years, preferably a year with an option if possible.  The Yankees could live with Damon's defense in left for another season rather than go out and overpay for a guy like Matt Holliday.  Holliday is good, but I think he will be overpaid with too many years for a guy turning 30.  The Yankees have Austin Jackson possibly coming up by 2011, which could solidify centerfield and possibly move Melky to right.  I don't think Melky is the long-term option there, but it would give the Yankees another season to pinpoint how they can buildup their outfield.

Committing short term to two players who should perform about their career average for the next season makes sense given that there are few outfielders available that are both good at the plate and with the glove.