Yankee writers must always find a way to beat down the Mets

Usually, I love stuff Peter Abraham writes. It's usually well thought out and supported by facts. Usually. Here's his latest, entitled "Cashman made the right move with Santana":

There is no question, none whatsoever, that Johan Santana would have helped the Yankees this season. There is little question that Melky Cabrera and Ian Kennedy were probably overvalued during the winter. Maybe Phil Hughes, too.

But does anybody still think it would have been smart for the Yankees to trade the farm for Santana then give him the six-year, $137.5 million deal the Mets did?

The Mets are 11-9 in the games Santana has started and he has allowed 16 home runs in 130.2 innings. That’s 49 dingers in the last 349.2 innings if you’re keeping track at home. The guy still has brilliant moments, but he’s getting to a point where you can see a slide coming.

Much like Pedro Martinez, you have to wonder what this deal will look like in a few years. Brian Cashman, it would seem, made a smart play last winter.

Notice how he leaves out Santana's 3.10 ERA (up nearly .30 after last night's start). That's good enough for 8th in the league.

Surprised he leaves out his 116 strikeouts (only 21 off the league lead)? He's in sixth in that catergory for the NL.

What about his 1.22 WHIP, which ranks below the league average? He's statistically 11th in the league in that catergory.

How about that in his last four losses, he's surrendered only one, four, one, and three runs in the respective games, lasting six innings or longer in each?

Nope, won't find that in his article. The facts a writer provides tells the story for you, but it's really the facts that he leaves out that show the true argument.