View Full Version : THE OFFICIAL "I hate Brian Cashman/Yankee Prospects Stink" super thread
budstinks
01-14-10, 08:16 PM
Personally I think we are doing pretty well, at least much better than we used to in our development of players.
AND
I like Brian Cashman.
I am just sick and tired of checking in for news on International Signees, etc only to see additional conversation of, and, or about What's up doc front office hating. Some of you guys should be arrested as terrorist for hijacking and animal cruelty.
So can we keep it all here and I promise I'll check in from time to time to see how bad it TRULY is?
JavyVazquezIsSick
01-14-10, 08:52 PM
In before the doc.
Hiyooooooooooo
yarosh25
01-14-10, 09:01 PM
thank you budstinks. Hopefully, this thread will be for what's up doc to what's up doc, and other threads will finally have news, updates and more pointed discussion.
yankee82093
01-14-10, 09:53 PM
thank you budstinks. Hopefully, this thread will be for what's up doc to what's up doc, and other threads will finally have news, updates and more pointed discussion.
That's pretty sexy, in a I'm-tired of-nonsense-in-this-forum kind of way. That came out weird.
primetime714
01-15-10, 10:55 AM
thank you budstinks. Hopefully, this thread will be for what's up doc to what's up doc, and other threads will finally have news, updates and more pointed discussion.
too bad there is pretty much no real news right now.
DWells4prez
01-15-10, 01:37 PM
Why do we feed the troll?
what's up doc?
01-15-10, 03:59 PM
Personally I think we are doing pretty well, at least much better than we used to in our development of players.
AND
I like Brian Cashman.
I am just sick and tired of checking in for news on International Signees, etc only to see additional conversation of, and, or about What's up doc front office hating. Some of you guys should be arrested as terrorist for hijacking and animal cruelty.
So can we keep it all here and I promise I'll check in from time to time to see how bad it TRULY is?
I'd think you'd be greatful for the deflection, as '09 was futher proof of just how quickly Cashman's devotion to player development has wained. The biggest news was for those that got away to the small market teams.
So which is it? Doing pretty well or at least better than before? Because they are worlds apart. The embarassing early to mid '00's is a patheticly low bar setting for comparison. And if the Yankees are doing the ambiguous pretty good, is that good enough by your standards? When the major league team is doing pretty good, is that OK too?
This team has, by far, the largest revenue stream in all of professional sports. "For those whom much is given, much is expected."
For most of the George Stienbrenner years, the crazy level of expenditures have been a case study of how not to run a pro franchise. The great exception to the rule was the special run of '96 to 2001. And that was only make possible by George's banning, which allowed for real baseball people to operate without the impatient, impulsive owners short horizon, ill-fated meddlings. This last WS victory is still do largely to those far reaching, developmental in-roads paved by the Stienbrenner-less years.
Now the biggest buz surrounding the farm system is the front office lip service and the fans who choose to play along with canned excitement.
Beyond Montero (someone I highly doubt that the Yankees would have signed in the present market climate) the upper level of the system is filled with second division role players. The lower system is not in much better shape, with 2 to 3 high ceiling types and the realities of low level attrition.
It's going to create the same vicious cycle that has plagued the Yankees for most of the Stienbrenner years. Needing to spend absurd amounts of money to over-pay aging veterans in free agency and having to trade most of what remains of the real prospects in hopes of staying on top. It leads to a ton of bad money being spent on immoveable contracts and little relief in terms of fresh blood within the system. The perverbial dog chasing it's tale.
And I'm not saying the Yankees shouldn't spend big-time on free agents. With the ever escalating costs of being a Yankees fan I expect it. But, do it wisely, for maximum effect. Don't trade Hughes for Santana, keep him and add Sabbathia one short year later. Sign a FA SP or two to an incentive filled contract this year and sign a prime aged, impact FA pitcher to team with CC as the best 1-2 in baseball next year. And I still got the under valued ceiling of Vizcaino as a big chip in acquiring H. Ramirez or to await another young wave-- sure sounds better to my ears when you team the big time stuff of Vizcaino with the lefthanded, no. 3 ceiling potential of Man Ban as 1, 2 punch. Feel the same way about signing a M. Byrd for CF and having enough money left to upgrade LF thus getting better overall, shortterm results than with CF Granderson and LF Gardener (of the this year's retread equivalent) AND retaining Jackson for the near future. Without Granderson's salary I can sign a FA of his calabre AND have the young, athletic, and inexpensive Jackson as an ever improving contibuter.
Now go ahead and convince me of how irrational my way of thinking is. Or how good the farm system is.
And no, I won't be buy into it. As always, I feel like Winston Churchill in a room full of Neville Chamberlains.
Reggievision
01-15-10, 04:50 PM
And no, I won't be buy into it. As always, I feel like Winston Churchill in a room full of Neville Chamberlains. Is there some corollary to Godwin's Law that covers Neville Chamberlain?
Seeing this thread made me think of this.
The first rule is to never acknowledge the troll or give them special attention. Once you acknowledge the troll, they'll stay and keep feeding until they grow so fat they consume the entire board. The only way to rid yourself of the troll, and restore sanity to the board, is to ignore them. Yes, it can be quite hard not to respond to their lunacy. They are just begging you to confront them and tell them how wrong they are. So they can respond and continue their feeding. But once they see everyone is ignoring them, the hungry troll will move away.
what's up doc?
01-16-10, 12:35 PM
Seeing this thread made me think of this.
The first rule is to never acknowledge the troll or give them special attention. Once you acknowledge the troll, they'll stay and keep feeding until they grow so fat they consume the entire board. The only way to rid yourself of the troll, and restore sanity to the board, is to ignore them. Yes, it can be quite hard not to respond to their lunacy. They are just begging you to confront them and tell them how wrong they are. So they can respond and continue their feeding. But once they see everyone is ignoring them, the hungry troll will move away.
Bud deserves better than that.
teknetic
01-16-10, 04:03 PM
Denial is a happy place.
Art Vanderlay
01-17-10, 08:32 AM
As I stated in the other thread, I believe "Whats up Doc" overstates the problems with Yankee Player development. He is not giving the team enough credit for Cano, Joba, Hughes, Robertson, Melky, etc. etc. However, there are elements of truth in what he's saying. For example, I am in total agreement with him that the Yankees have not taken full advantage of the system which allows IFA to bypass the draft and sign with any team. Also, its hard to deny that the young Steinbrenners are tightening the purse strings. Would the old man have allowed the Reds to outbid us for Chapman or the A's to outbid us for Iona? Would the old man let Damon walk for the 5 to 8 million it would take to sign him? The reality is that 2 years ago Hank Steinbrenner talked about hoarding prospects and it hasn't happened. With their resources the Yankees should be doing a much better job of player development. I believe most objective fans would agree with that statement.
budstinks
01-17-10, 09:52 AM
As I stated in the other thread, I believe "Whats up Doc" overstates the problems with Yankee Player development. He is not giving the team enough credit for Cano, Joba, Hughes, Robertson, Melky, etc. etc. However, there are elements of truth in what he's saying. For example, I am in total agreement with him that the Yankees have not taken full advantage of the system which allows IFA to bypass the draft and sign with any team. Also, its hard to deny that the young Steinbrenners are tightening the purse strings. Would the old man have allowed the Reds to outbid us for Chapman or the A's to outbid us for Iona? Would the old man let Damon walk for the 5 to 8 million it would take to sign him? The reality is that 2 years ago Hank Steinbrenner talked about hoarding prospects and it hasn't happened. With their resources the Yankees should be doing a much better job of player development. I believe most objective fans would agree with that statement.
I think most here would agree with your post. I'm disappointed we aren't hoarding prospects like hankie boy said we would.
I'm disappointed we don't take MORE advantage than what we do with the IFA. Although blowing the kind of money it took for Chapman or Iona isn't necessarily what I have in mind. I'd like to take advantage of the $500k to $1 mil type players and offer 50% more.
At the same time, I'm not so much a hater that I can't admit that there has been improvement, that drafting where we draft denies us a chance at the better prospects and that the past years lack of aggressiveness had more with going over budget on Tex than it does with Yankee cheapness.
DWells4prez
01-17-10, 10:24 AM
The mere fact that this guy believes Marlon Byrd is the answer in CF renders every other statement he makes pointless.
Woo lets sign players coming back from injury and count on them to throw 200+ innings..... This plan worked out for the Red-Sox last year no? (Penny, Smoltz, ETC..)
Lets sign one of these stud SP this upcoming off-season......OK Captain obvious, Andy + Vazquez = 25million off the books = DEFINITE signings
Trade for Hanley Ramirez? Not possible.
Not trade for Granderson? WOW Jackson is young and athletic....He will still be below average regular in CF givin the chance to play everyday. His ceiling is below Granderson's who is in his peak years and cost controlled for then next 3 years....
Comeon man, just go to a Red Sox board already
yarosh25
01-17-10, 11:25 AM
As I stated in the other thread, I believe "Whats up Doc" overstates the problems with Yankee Player development. He is not giving the team enough credit for Cano, Joba, Hughes, Robertson, Melky, etc. etc. However, there are elements of truth in what he's saying. For example, I am in total agreement with him that the Yankees have not taken full advantage of the system which allows IFA to bypass the draft and sign with any team. Also, its hard to deny that the young Steinbrenners are tightening the purse strings. Would the old man have allowed the Reds to outbid us for Chapman or the A's to outbid us for Iona? Would the old man let Damon walk for the 5 to 8 million it would take to sign him? The reality is that 2 years ago Hank Steinbrenner talked about hoarding prospects and it hasn't happened. With their resources the Yankees should be doing a much better job of player development. I believe most objective fans would agree with that statement.
The problem with not signing more IFAs is that Yankees just changed top executives oversees, specifically Carlos Rios, and it takes time to establish new contacts/connections with agents, handlers, etc and not jmp cold turkey into the market without knowing who the real players are, which agents overhype their prospects by a mile, who is willing to go extra distance to get paid (for example changing birth certificates, PEDs to ttheir players). Otherwise there could be pretty costly mistakes that could turn ownership completely away from that region as a bad investment area.
DontHateOnNumber2
01-17-10, 01:05 PM
The mere fact that this guy believes Marlon Byrd is the answer in CF renders every other statement he makes pointless.
Woo lets sign players coming back from injury and count on them to throw 200+ innings..... This plan worked out for the Red-Sox last year no? (Penny, Smoltz, ETC..)
Lets sign one of these stud SP this upcoming off-season......OK Captain obvious, Andy + Vazquez = 25million off the books = DEFINITE signings
Trade for Hanley Ramirez? Not possible.
Not trade for Granderson? WOW Jackson is young and athletic....He will still be below average regular in CF givin the chance to play everyday. His ceiling is below Granderson's who is in his peak years and cost controlled for then next 3 years....
Comeon man, just go to a Red Sox board already
Kick, punch, block.
Matsui55
01-17-10, 01:18 PM
As I stated in the other thread, I believe "Whats up Doc" overstates the problems with Yankee Player development. He is not giving the team enough credit for Cano, Joba, Hughes, Robertson, Melky, etc. etc. However, there are elements of truth in what he's saying. For example, I am in total agreement with him that the Yankees have not taken full advantage of the system which allows IFA to bypass the draft and sign with any team. Also, its hard to deny that the young Steinbrenners are tightening the purse strings. Would the old man have allowed the Reds to outbid us for Chapman or the A's to outbid us for Iona? Would the old man let Damon walk for the 5 to 8 million it would take to sign him? The reality is that 2 years ago Hank Steinbrenner talked about hoarding prospects and it hasn't happened. With their resources the Yankees should be doing a much better job of player development. I believe most objective fans would agree with that statement.
Did everyone conveniently forget the elephant in the middle of the room? Who do you think is paying for that $1B new Stadium?
That's right- the Yankees are on the hook for at least several hundred million dollars, and maybe as much as half a billion dollars.
When the Yanks were in the old Stadium, it had been paid for so long ago that the Yanks didn't need to account for much more than upgrades and maintenance costs. That has all changed. If you have ever owned a house, you know that the banks aren't simply going to give you a backloaded payment schedule. They want their money back, with interest, quickly.
In short, this criticism of Hal and Cashman is foolish on a number of levels. First, the statement about blowing away the other teams came from HANK, who has little role in the running of the team- simply because HAL controls the money. Second, because Hal is in control of the money, he has to make sure the Yanks make their Stadium payments in addition to the payroll and other costs.
Remember that the Yanks have not cut their payroll significantly over the past several years. Instead, they have kept the payroll around $200M. Keep in mind that the Yanks have other costs- coaches, employees, benefits payments, draft picks, IFA signings, and all the other costs associated with running a business.
Now, it is true that the Yanks have raised prices on tickets, parking and other costs- but keep in mind that these are not "new" sources of revenue- these are just increases on the existing sources. That means that despite rising gross revenue numbers, you must also account for the significiant increases in costs (the Stadium payments).
In short, as Yankee fans, we should consider ourselves EXTREMELY fortunate that Hal has maintained payroll, likely at the cost of owner profits and other costs in the organization. However, one of those costs is probably the draft and IFA budget. Yankee fans should be happy that the budget for the draft and IFA is as high as it is- the Steinbrenners have never been shy about ploughing profits back into the team- but given the financial realities of the past couple years, the Yanks have done everything they can to maintain the quality of the ML product- while paying for the new Stadium.
While lazy sportswriters and talk radio hosts loved to show the empty luxury seats at the Stadium and talk about greed- Yankee fans should have been incensed. Those empty seats meant lost profits- which in turn meant that that was a future opportunity lost, because the next budget would be that much smaller- and cuts would be made somewhere.
In short, next time you think the Yanks have an un limited budget, go down and visit the new Stadium, and thank the Yanks for making sure you have a front office and ownership that isn't skimping on the on-field product for that new Stadium- and think about what is likely being sacrificed for those payments.
There is an argument to be made that perhaps the Yanks should not have gone for the over-the-top Stadium- but those decisions were made in a different financial time, with different finacial realities. No one expected or foresaw the Recession coming- and for the Yanks, it simply happened at the worst possible time with the new Stadium opening- and the resultant loss in revenue for the empty high end seats.
The Yanks still make their big splashes in the IFA market and the draft- but the bluster of Hank will never happen, as long as the Yanks have principal and interest payments to make on the new Stadium.
what's up doc?
01-17-10, 08:20 PM
Did everyone conveniently forget the elephant in the middle of the room? Who do you think is paying for that $1B new Stadium?
That's right- the Yankees are on the hook for at least several hundred million dollars, and maybe as much as half a billion dollars.
When the Yanks were in the old Stadium, it had been paid for so long ago that the Yanks didn't need to account for much more than upgrades and maintenance costs. That has all changed. If you have ever owned a house, you know that the banks aren't simply going to give you a backloaded payment schedule. They want their money back, with interest, quickly.
In short, this criticism of Hal and Cashman is foolish on a number of levels. First, the statement about blowing away the other teams came from HANK, who has little role in the running of the team- simply because HAL controls the money. Second, because Hal is in control of the money, he has to make sure the Yanks make their Stadium payments in addition to the payroll and other costs.
Remember that the Yanks have not cut their payroll significantly over the past several years. Instead, they have kept the payroll around $200M. Keep in mind that the Yanks have other costs- coaches, employees, benefits payments, draft picks, IFA signings, and all the other costs associated with running a business.
Now, it is true that the Yanks have raised prices on tickets, parking and other costs- but keep in mind that these are not "new" sources of revenue- these are just increases on the existing sources. That means that despite rising gross revenue numbers, you must also account for the significiant increases in costs (the Stadium payments).
In short, as Yankee fans, we should consider ourselves EXTREMELY fortunate that Hal has maintained payroll, likely at the cost of owner profits and other costs in the organization. However, one of those costs is probably the draft and IFA budget. Yankee fans should be happy that the budget for the draft and IFA is as high as it is- the Steinbrenners have never been shy about ploughing profits back into the team- but given the financial realities of the past couple years, the Yanks have done everything they can to maintain the quality of the ML product- while paying for the new Stadium.
While lazy sportswriters and talk radio hosts loved to show the empty luxury seats at the Stadium and talk about greed- Yankee fans should have been incensed. Those empty seats meant lost profits- which in turn meant that that was a future opportunity lost, because the next budget would be that much smaller- and cuts would be made somewhere.
In short, next time you think the Yanks have an un limited budget, go down and visit the new Stadium, and thank the Yanks for making sure you have a front office and ownership that isn't skimping on the on-field product for that new Stadium- and think about what is likely being sacrificed for those payments.
There is an argument to be made that perhaps the Yanks should not have gone for the over-the-top Stadium- but those decisions were made in a different financial time, with different finacial realities. No one expected or foresaw the Recession coming- and for the Yanks, it simply happened at the worst possible time with the new Stadium opening- and the resultant loss in revenue for the empty high end seats.
The Yanks still make their big splashes in the IFA market and the draft- but the bluster of Hank will never happen, as long as the Yanks have principal and interest payments to make on the new Stadium.
"In short":eek:
what's up doc?
01-17-10, 08:23 PM
As I stated in the other thread, I believe "Whats up Doc" overstates the problems with Yankee Player development. He is not giving the team enough credit for Cano, Joba, Hughes, Robertson, Melky, etc. etc. However, there are elements of truth in what he's saying. For example, I am in total agreement with him that the Yankees have not taken full advantage of the system which allows IFA to bypass the draft and sign with any team. Also, its hard to deny that the young Steinbrenners are tightening the purse strings. Would the old man have allowed the Reds to outbid us for Chapman or the A's to outbid us for Iona? Would the old man let Damon walk for the 5 to 8 million it would take to sign him? The reality is that 2 years ago Hank Steinbrenner talked about hoarding prospects and it hasn't happened. With their resources the Yankees should be doing a much better job of player development. I believe most objective fans would agree with that statement.
You are obviously a highly intelligent, independent thinker with his finger in the dam. Emphasing the highly intelligent, independent thinker part.
what's up doc?
01-17-10, 08:51 PM
The mere fact that this guy believes Marlon Byrd is the answer in CF renders every other statement he makes pointless.
Woo lets sign players coming back from injury and count on them to throw 200+ innings..... This plan worked out for the Red-Sox last year no? (Penny, Smoltz, ETC..)
Lets sign one of these stud SP this upcoming off-season......OK Captain obvious, Andy + Vazquez = 25million off the books = DEFINITE signings
Trade for Hanley Ramirez? Not possible.
Not trade for Granderson? WOW Jackson is young and athletic....He will still be below average regular in CF givin the chance to play everyday. His ceiling is below Granderson's who is in his peak years and cost controlled for then next 3 years....
Comeon man, just go to a Red Sox board already
1) I said that by signing Byrd and still having money let over when compared to Granderson's contract would allow you to upgrade over Gardener in LF and have better overall production AND you get to keep Jackson who's cost controlled for six years and projected to get better. Somehow Jackson's ceiling dropped a lot since the trade. So, in the big picture, yes, an answer.
2) Granderson's splits stink and he doesn't profile as a player who will age well.
3) Vazquez had a career year and will not come close to repeating it in the AL East. Cashman payed too much (by including Vizcaino) too early in the prossess.
4) Sheets and Bedard could have been had for near the same cost with loads of incentives added on. No more of a gamble that one of them will come through in the 2nd half bigger than Vazquez and pitch better in the real Yankee's season that counts....the playoffs. And my way, they only risk money. If both the RH'er and the LH'er pay off, WOW. The upside is actually greater and the downside doesn't include losing a potential farm produced ace. It's not the number of innings with CC, Burnett, and Andy on board as much quality of and importance of those innings.
5) H. Ramirez is an example of a player I would package my no. 2 and no. 3 prospects (and others) for. Likely to come available and if he does, the forethought would allow me to have the propects spent for Granderson and a one year rental to land a true Yankee-esque magnitude star. Still young enough to team with Montero and a few of the LA FA stars that got away to start another really special run.
6) Granderson's cost controlled? I think they call that a guaranteed multi-million dollar, multi-year contract. Yankee's got lots of those. By your definition guaranteed and cost control are one and the same. Spoken like a true Steinbrenner supporter. They can't tell the difference, either.
7) Why don't you and Cashman go to the Red Sox board and allow for a much needed fresh approach here.
what's up doc?
01-17-10, 08:58 PM
I think most here would agree with your post. I'm disappointed we aren't hoarding prospects like hankie boy said we would.
I'm disappointed we don't take MORE advantage than what we do with the IFA. Although blowing the kind of money it took for Chapman or Iona isn't necessarily what I have in mind. I'd like to take advantage of the $500k to $1 mil type players and offer 50% more.
At the same time, I'm not so much a hater that I can't admit that there has been improvement, that drafting where we draft denies us a chance at the better prospects and that the past years lack of aggressiveness had more with going over budget on Tex than it does with Yankee cheapness.
$Ardolis$ meet Dusty "Arm Grinder" Baker.
No, it really doesn't. It's called going over-slot. Players with high ceilings drop every year. You have to plan the budget to go after them and mean it. Bud Selig can't do anything with real consequences to stop it.
JavyVazquezIsSick
01-17-10, 10:13 PM
You've gone off the deep end.
teknetic
01-17-10, 11:44 PM
1) I said that by signing Byrd and still having money let over when compared to Granderson's contract would allow you to upgrade over Gardener in LF and have better overall production AND you get to keep Jackson who's cost controlled for six years and projected to get better. Somehow Jackson's ceiling dropped a lot since the trade. So, in the big picture, yes, an answer.
2) Granderson's splits stink and he doesn't profile as a player who will age well.
You rail on Granderson's poor splits (when his splits against pitchers he'll face 75% of the time are excellent) and then go onto ignore the fact that Byrd is a product of Arlington (.900 OPS at Home/.742 Away)
Jackson was a good, but flawed prospect. But yea, Yankee fans only began saying such things after the trade.
3) Vazquez had a career year and will not come close to repeating it in the AL East. Cashman payed too much (by including Vizcaino) too early in the prossess.
No one is asking him to repeat, his FIP with Chicago should be an indicator of what to expect.
4) Sheets and Bedard could have been had for near the same cost with loads of incentives added on. No more of a gamble that one of them will come through in the 2nd half bigger than Vazquez and pitch better in the real Yankee's season that counts....the playoffs. And my way, they only risk money. If both the RH'er and the LH'er pay off, WOW. The upside is actually greater and the downside doesn't include losing a potential farm produced ace. It's not the number of innings with CC, Burnett, and Andy on board as much quality of and importance of those innings.
Take a gamble on Sheets and Bedard so that when their arms fall off mid-April you can rant like a petulant child about how wrong Cashman was?
Bad troll is bad.
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">
VTYankeesFan2
01-18-10, 11:33 AM
As I stated in the other thread, I believe "Whats up Doc" overstates the problems with Yankee Player development. He is not giving the team enough credit for Cano, Joba, Hughes, Robertson, Melky, etc. etc. However, there are elements of truth in what he's saying. For example, I am in total agreement with him that the Yankees have not taken full advantage of the system which allows IFA to bypass the draft and sign with any team. Also, its hard to deny that the young Steinbrenners are tightening the purse strings. Would the old man have allowed the Reds to outbid us for Chapman or the A's to outbid us for Iona? Would the old man let Damon walk for the 5 to 8 million it would take to sign him? The reality is that 2 years ago Hank Steinbrenner talked about hoarding prospects and it hasn't happened. With their resources the Yankees should be doing a much better job of player development. I believe most objective fans would agree with that statement.
I agree with what has been stated here. I think that the picture isn't quite as bleak as it is being portrayed by 'What's Up Doc', but it certainly isn't all roses either. The lack of positional prospects at the top of the system, aside from Montero and potenitally Romine, is alarming. The high level of injuries to the few exciting upper level starting pitchers is also alarming. However, there is talent in the system, especially in the lower levels. Not enough credit is being given for Wang, Cano, Melky, nor is enough credit being given for Hughes, Joba, Gardner, Melancon, Robertson, McAllister and others as draftees (even though most are from the 2006 draft). The last 3-4 drafts have been fairly strong, though I think there are some picks that everyone would have liked to have been different, though I am sure that is true in hindsight with all team's drafts. I think the past couple of years have been run with a good balance of trades, free agent signings and development of young players, though I will say that none of the young players appear to be headed for stardom, with the exception of Cano and potential of Montero (though Hughes and Joba could apply here as well, if they ever get the chance to start full time and can handle it).
That being said, some of the things mentioned do at least cause me to pause and think. What if we signed Byrd and Damon for CF and LF instead of trading for Granderson? Would we be better off? True Damon is older and Byrd has flaws, but both outperformed Grandy last year and we would still have Jackson in the wings, as well as Gardner. If Grandy reverts back to 2007/2008 form, we are fine. If not, well, it may not be pretty. Another factor is that Gardner and Grandy are much younger than Damon and Byrd and Byrd hasn't had a season of offensive success outside of Texas, so that needs to be considered as well.
Another interesting thing to consider is, would we be better off with Sheets/Bedard and Vizcaino or Vazquez? Vazquez had mixed results the first time around and the cost of him in a trade was high. He likely will be gone after 2010 anyway, with a FA starter (can you say Cliff Lee?) in his place. Would we be better off rolling the dice on one of the injured guys and keeping the young arm? I kind of feel like we are rolling the dice anyway.
I realize that the farm system has many uses and it isn't solely responsible for stocking the major league level with players. Some guys are redundant and can be used to fill holes or areas of need, which is what was attempted here. I can't fault the attempted effort to get better and younger, but the path taken certainly can be debated. The game of what if can be played, as long as you don't get too extreme about it. We can't get all the best young players, nor can we draft all the high ceiling signability cases, nor can we develop a full team of homegrown players. We just have to hope that the best decisions possible are made. So far, things haven't turned out too bad.
Tom Finnigan
01-18-10, 12:37 PM
I agree with what has been stated here. I think that the picture isn't quite as bleak as it is being portrayed by 'What's Up Doc', but it certainly isn't all roses either. The lack of positional prospects at the top of the system, aside from Montero and potenitally Romine, is alarming. The high level of injuries to the few exciting upper level starting pitchers is also alarming. However, there is talent in the system, especially in the lower levels. Not enough credit is being given for Wang, Cano, Melky, nor is enough credit being given for Hughes, Joba, Gardner, Melancon, Robertson, McAllister and others as draftees (even though most are from the 2006 draft). The last 3-4 drafts have been fairly strong, though I think there are some picks that everyone would have liked to have been different, though I am sure that is true in hindsight with all team's drafts. I think the past couple of years have been run with a good balance of trades, free agent signings and development of young players, though I will say that none of the young players appear to be headed for stardom, with the exception of Cano and potential of Montero (though Hughes and Joba could apply here as well, if they ever get the chance to start full time and can handle it).
That being said, some of the things mentioned do at least cause me to pause and think. What if we signed Byrd and Damon for CF and LF instead of trading for Granderson? Would we be better off? True Damon is older and Byrd has flaws, but both outperformed Grandy last year and we would still have Jackson in the wings, as well as Gardner. If Grandy reverts back to 2007/2008 form, we are fine. If not, well, it may not be pretty. Another factor is that Gardner and Grandy are much younger than Damon and Byrd and Byrd hasn't had a season of offensive success outside of Texas, so that needs to be considered as well.
Another interesting thing to consider is, would we be better off with Sheets/Bedard and Vizcaino or Vazquez? Vazquez had mixed results the first time around and the cost of him in a trade was high. He likely will be gone after 2010 anyway, with a FA starter (can you say Cliff Lee?) in his place. Would we be better off rolling the dice on one of the injured guys and keeping the young arm? I kind of feel like we are rolling the dice anyway.
I realize that the farm system has many uses and it isn't solely responsible for stocking the major league level with players. Some guys are redundant and can be used to fill holes or areas of need, which is what was attempted here. I can't fault the attempted effort to get better and younger, but the path taken certainly can be debated. The game of what if can be played, as long as you don't get too extreme about it. We can't get all the best young players, nor can we draft all the high ceiling signability cases, nor can we develop a full team of homegrown players. We just have to hope that the best decisions possible are made. So far, things haven't turned out too bad.
With most of our marquee players on the back end of their careers, the front office would do the fans and themselves a disservice by letting the farm system lapse into mediocrity. What's Up Doc is in my opiniojn, spot on. Interesting that the Yankees brought in Livesey last year. Was it to shore up problems within the scouting department, or is Oppenheimer overrated? We shall see.
ThePinStripes
01-18-10, 01:04 PM
So long as we're trading for young players, cost controlled players and/or players that will return picks like Vazquez, I don't have a real problem with it.
It's the 34 year olds coming off career years that I want to stay away from. Trading a prospected like Jackson for a 28 year old all star like Granderson is fine by me.
You guys need to keep in mind that we're the Yankees. There is no room for a 75 OPS+ hitter in our lineup. Our #9 hitter had a 99 OPS+ and he got traded. Our current #9 hitter plays ++ defense in a prime position, steals a lot of bases and had a 93 OPS+. People are still screaming for an upgrade.
Keep the ones that project to be something good. Spin the rest off for something that is good. The 200 million dollar pay roll fills in the rest.
Matsui55
01-18-10, 05:32 PM
With most of our marquee players on the back end of their careers, the front office would do the fans and themselves a disservice by letting the farm system lapse into mediocrity. What's Up Doc is in my opiniojn, spot on. Interesting that the Yankees brought in Livesey last year. Was it to shore up problems within the scouting department, or is Oppenheimer overrated? We shall see.
This is a dramatic overstatement.
Posada is clearly on his last Yankee contract- but the Yanks appear to be covered between Montero and Romine. Both are VERY young (early 20s)
Jeter is not going to be a SS much longer (though he can move to the OF and add a few useful years to his career). Keep in mind that while this is a tough fix, watch what happens with Hanley Ramirez- his contract begins to get VERY large (up to 1/3 of the Marlins projected payroll) by 2011. The Yanks might be in a position to make a move after this season. HRam is in his mid 20's.
Mo is aging- despite what the ostrichs here say- but Joba is a quite acceptable alternative- and in his mid 20's.
ARod is 33- he did respond well after the hip surgery, and will now be forced to take the extra measures to keep himself in peak condition. The DH spot will be his in 2-3 years, but he will still be among MLB's elite for some time.
Tex is 30- not an issue.
Cano is in his 20's- not an issue.
Granderson is in his 20's- not an issue.
Swisher turns 30 this coming November- not an issue.
Gardner, assuming he is the LF, is in his 20's- not an issue.
The pitching:
This is likely Pettitte's last season. He's a #3 SP who is older and did have arm surgery 3 years ago. However, no apparent problems since. He will likely be told that his time in NY is up after this season, as the Yanks will chase the big FA SP in the off-season.
CC turns 30 in July- not an issue.
AJ turned 33 in January- that's borderline age- he has had durability problems in the past- but has put together 2 full seasons in a row. Some concern, but not high concern.
Vasquez is 34- but has been VERY durable for years- hasn't made less than 32 starts since 1999. Not much concern as he is a FA this winter.
Hughes and Joba- early 20's- not an issue.
Rest of Yankees bullpen not named Mo or Marter- all in 20's no issues. Marte is 35, but is a bit player in the pen- might not be more than a situational lefty.
In short, saying that the Yanks "core" is old is REALLY stretching the truth.
Jeter, Posada, Pettitte, and Mo are significantly older. However, viable existing alternatives for Mo and Posada exist already. Pettitte and Vasquez are VERY likely to be replaced in FA next offseason (pick 2 from Lilly, Lee, Webb and others).
That just leaves the Yanks without a viable existing Jeter alternative (no, Pena will not be the answer). That means a hard decision must be made after this season- btu the Yanks have the resources to make whatever trade is necessary.
Let's stop being a bunch of Nancies and think first.
Yankee Fan in Boston
01-18-10, 07:22 PM
Y
Take a gamble on Sheets and Bedard so that when their arms fall off mid-April you can rant like a petulant child about how wrong Cashman was?
Bad troll is bad.
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">
This is, I believe, called the Epstein strategy. Smoltz and Penny suggest it doesn't always work out.
ThePinStripes
01-18-10, 09:33 PM
This is, I believe, called the Epstein strategy. Smoltz and Penny suggest it doesn't always work out.
Penny wasn't good enough and a 41 year old coming off shoulder surgery was just an outright stupid move for the AL East.
Sheets is much much much better gamble.
RollingWave
01-19-10, 03:37 AM
Sheets hasn't pitched in a whole freaking year. and was never the picture of health to begin with. could he be worth a gamble? sure, but it's still a gamble, and if you lose the gamble your left with a gaping hole in the rotation.
Just watch the Mets implode next year with their rotation. and more of it will be due to lack of innings than actual lack of good pitching.
5) H. Ramirez is an example of a player I would package my no. 2 and no. 3 prospects (and others) for. Likely to come available and if he does, the forethought would allow me to have the propects spent for Granderson and a one year rental to land a true Yankee-esque magnitude star. Still young enough to team with Montero and a few of the LA FA stars that got away to start another really special run.
If I'm a team not named a Florida Marlins (aka not a cheap shot a-hole team who's operating with the only intention of rigging revenue sharing dollars) that have a Hanley Ramirez, I would not trade him for anything short of 2 A propsect and a couple of Bs, looking at John Sickle's current list, there is exactly 2 teams in the majors that have 3 A prospects. (Rangers and Rays)
If you think offering Vizcaino + Jackson (plus any other prospects not named Montero) = Hanley Ramirez, I think you have no clue on values in baseball. in fact, even if you trade the entire Yankee system top 10 prior to those two deals, it would not come close to netting Hanely Ramirez.
Of course, being the Marlins, they probably end up trading Hanely for less, but even then, the Yankee farm system is highly unlikely to be able to compete with other teams.
The closest comparable was the Ricky Henderson trade, but back then the Yankees had Jose Rijo, who was the best pitching prospect in baseball. (and would turn out to be a very good pitcher, maybe even a HOF pitcher if injuries hadn't derail him) Eric Plunk (who had a very nice year in A ball that year, and would turn in a reasonablly good career as a reliever) Stan Javier (who was kinda like Melky Cabrera of the day, turned in a long solid career mostly as a 4th OF) Jay Howell ( another useful reliever, though he was more of a known quality by then) and Tim Birtas (who had massive tools as a 6'7 240 lefty, he didn't turn out that well but as a prospect he was pretty good).
To compare, I would have rated Rijos a strait A and probably the best prospect in baseball at that point, Plunk a B+ , Javier and Birtas somewhere in the B range. and most people considered that trade a true high way robbery . even when the Yankees sat on their couches after their worest season in franchise history while Jose Rijo dominate game 1 and 4 of the 1990 WS.
even if the Marlins were forced by financial trouble, that above list is probably the abosalute minimum of what it would take to get Ramirez, which si certainly WELL above your supposed Vizcaino + Jackson theory . try Montero (rough equivalent to Rijo ) + Vizcaino (who's somewhat comparable to Plunk) Jackson (Javier) and a healthier version of Brackman / Betances . along with ... oh say a Brian Bruney (before he was traded)
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/the-biggest-deals-of-all-time/
the Yankees eventually pried Henderson from the A's by giving up four of their top five prospects (ranked by Baseball America) at the time.
So again, once you bring up the #2+#3 guy for Han-Ram, you lose all credibility. because if anything, the abosalute minimum it would take for a Han Ram is more like #1-#4 .
budstinks
01-19-10, 04:29 AM
So again, once you bring up the #2+#3 guy for Han-Ram, you lose all credibility. because if anything, the abosalute minimum it would take for a Han Ram is more like #1-#4 .
I don't even know where to start with this thread?:dunno:
By the time the Marlins trade Hanley, a package of Austin Romine, Slade Heathcott, Kelvin DeLeon, Manny Banuelos and Jose Rameriz could easily get it done.
I think the Yankee system will look a lot better in a year or so once some of the younger investments hit the full season leagues. Or it could look worse if a lot of the younger players bust. :eek:
Either way, I think the Yanks have plenty of talent working it's way up to trade for just about any player. Especially in a year or so.
RollingWave
01-19-10, 05:06 AM
I don't even know where to start with this thread?:dunno:
By the time the Marlins trade Hanley, a package of Austin Romine, Slade Heathcott, Kelvin DeLeon, Manny Banuelos and Jose Rameriz could easily get it done.
I think the Yankee system will look a lot better in a year or so once some of the younger investments hit the full season leagues. Or it could look worse if a lot of the younger players bust. :eek:
Either way, I think the Yanks have plenty of talent working it's way up to trade for just about any player. Especially in a year or so. Sure, if you have a crystal ball into the future. and if they do develope like that you'd probably won't view them in the same light as you would now. I do agree that the Yankee system have improved in terms of depth, they do a good job drafting (relative to their limited draft slots) and IFA, but for the purpose of this current point in time, the Yankees have one great prospect, about 3 guys who are solid but still have various degree of questions. and a lot of maybes. that isn't a currenlty strong system, it MIGHT be better in a year or 2, but it ISN'T good.
VTYankeesFan2
01-19-10, 07:35 AM
I don't even know where to start with this thread?:dunno:
By the time the Marlins trade Hanley, a package of Austin Romine, Slade Heathcott, Kelvin DeLeon, Manny Banuelos and Jose Rameriz could easily get it done.
I think the Yankee system will look a lot better in a year or so once some of the younger investments hit the full season leagues. Or it could look worse if a lot of the younger players bust. :eek:
Either way, I think the Yanks have plenty of talent working it's way up to trade for just about any player. Especially in a year or so.
I am inclined to agree with your analysis for the future potential of the system, especially with these young guys you have mentioned, as well as some others, hopefully staying healthy and developing to their full potential. With further advancement of these 5, plus say Brackman, Betances, Murphy, Paredes (who I personally love as a prospect), Suttle, and a few others, I think the Yankees will have a dynamite system. However, at this point, it is all projection.
Assuming that these guys do develop as hoped and achieve their full potential, would we really be willing to do that trade? I would think that a potential starting Catcher, CF, corner OF, #2 pitcher and #3 pitcher would be more attractive to keep as Yankees than to shuttle them off for one player, even if he is a potential future HOF Shortstop. I think I would pass on that trade, considering all the factors, including the cost of keeping Ramirez as a Yankee long term (which will be considerable for sure), but I am curious what others think.
RollingWave
01-19-10, 11:29 AM
I am inclined to agree with your analysis for the future potential of the system, especially with these young guys you have mentioned, as well as some others, hopefully staying healthy and developing to their full potential. With further advancement of these 5, plus say Brackman, Betances, Murphy, Paredes (who I personally love as a prospect), Suttle, and a few others, I think the Yankees will have a dynamite system. However, at this point, it is all projection.
Assuming that these guys do develop as hoped and achieve their full potential, would we really be willing to do that trade? I would think that a potential starting Catcher, CF, corner OF, #2 pitcher and #3 pitcher would be more attractive to keep as Yankees than to shuttle them off for one player, even if he is a potential future HOF Shortstop. I think I would pass on that trade, considering all the factors, including the cost of keeping Ramirez as a Yankee long term (which will be considerable for sure), but I am curious what others think. Yes you would, unless you are very very sure that you have on hand a HOF talent yourself (and really the only guy who can even remotely make that claim now is Montero, and even then you'd seriously weigh the odds and value of a guy who is more likely to turn into a DH than C), you would always trade away any number of prospects for a SS in his 20s who looks like he's well on his way to a inner circle HOF track. espeically when your the yankees and filling out other holes isn't a serious challenge.
Yankee Fan in Boston
01-19-10, 11:31 AM
Penny wasn't good enough and a 41 year old coming off shoulder surgery was just an outright stupid move for the AL East.
Sheets is much much much better gamble.
None of us really knows this, do we? We haven't seen his medicals, and his track record doesn't suggest he'll pitch a full season
JavyVazquezIsSick
01-19-10, 11:56 AM
This thread is nucking futz.
ThePinStripes
01-19-10, 01:11 PM
None of us really knows this, do we? We haven't seen his medicals, and his track record doesn't suggest he'll pitch a full season
Assuming he's healthy on opening day, of course.
Yankeesfan21
01-19-10, 03:35 PM
I can't believe this guy is complaining about the Granderson and Vasquez deal. I mean I could see if we gave up Montero for Halladay, but these prospects aren't blue-chip top prospects. Jackson value as a prospect has fallen over the past 2 years and wasn't improving at certain areas of his game that the Yankees wanted to see improvement in. And you're going to criticize a deal that got the Yankees a top 4 Cy Young candidate in the NL because of an 18 year old pitcher who's at the very least 3 years away from the majors?
That has to be a joke, right? Not to mention by the time those 2 players (if they even pan out) contribute to this team, we will be seeing less production from our core players (A-Rod, Jeter, Riveria, Posada).
what's up doc?
01-20-10, 05:05 AM
This is a dramatic overstatement.
Posada is clearly on his last Yankee contract- but the Yanks appear to be covered between Montero and Romine. Both are VERY young (early 20s)
Jeter is not going to be a SS much longer (though he can move to the OF and add a few useful years to his career). Keep in mind that while this is a tough fix, watch what happens with Hanley Ramirez- his contract begins to get VERY large (up to 1/3 of the Marlins projected payroll) by 2011. The Yanks might be in a position to make a move after this season. HRam is in his mid 20's.
Mo is aging- despite what the ostrichs here say- but Joba is a quite acceptable alternative- and in his mid 20's.
ARod is 33- he did respond well after the hip surgery, and will now be forced to take the extra measures to keep himself in peak condition. The DH spot will be his in 2-3 years, but he will still be among MLB's elite for some time.
Tex is 30- not an issue.
Cano is in his 20's- not an issue.
Granderson is in his 20's- not an issue.
Swisher turns 30 this coming November- not an issue.
Gardner, assuming he is the LF, is in his 20's- not an issue.
The pitching:
This is likely Pettitte's last season. He's a #3 SP who is older and did have arm surgery 3 years ago. However, no apparent problems since. He will likely be told that his time in NY is up after this season, as the Yanks will chase the big FA SP in the off-season.
CC turns 30 in July- not an issue.
AJ turned 33 in January- that's borderline age- he has had durability problems in the past- but has put together 2 full seasons in a row. Some concern, but not high concern.
Vasquez is 34- but has been VERY durable for years- hasn't made less than 32 starts since 1999. Not much concern as he is a FA this winter.
Hughes and Joba- early 20's- not an issue.
Rest of Yankees bullpen not named Mo or Marter- all in 20's no issues. Marte is 35, but is a bit player in the pen- might not be more than a situational lefty.
In short, saying that the Yanks "core" is old is REALLY stretching the truth.
Jeter, Posada, Pettitte, and Mo are significantly older. However, viable existing alternatives for Mo and Posada exist already. Pettitte and Vasquez are VERY likely to be replaced in FA next offseason (pick 2 from Lilly, Lee, Webb and others).
That just leaves the Yanks without a viable existing Jeter alternative (no, Pena will not be the answer). That means a hard decision must be made after this season- btu the Yanks have the resources to make whatever trade is necessary.
Let's stop being a bunch of Nancies and think first.
Dramatic overstatement.....mentions a 2B who is entering his late 20's and a CF who turns 30 this year. A young bullpen. Oh, lets not forget to throw in Gardener (who's status on the depth charts should be an inditement of the system.) Every other name mentioned is on the wrong side of thirty.
Truly core worthy, elite players extend their prime years. Swisher, for one, is already well into a downward slide, Granderson has just begun his. 34 is right at the age where pitchers with the mileage and make up of Vazquez begin their decline/injury phase. Ditto for Burnett and soon to follow, Sabbathia.
Wow, that's some kind of case to be made.
And the only thing being stretched is players being deemed as a part of the core.
what's up doc?
01-20-10, 05:27 AM
Sheets hasn't pitched in a whole freaking year. and was never the picture of health to begin with. could he be worth a gamble? sure, but it's still a gamble, and if you lose the gamble your left with a gaping hole in the rotation.
Just watch the Mets implode next year with their rotation. and more of it will be due to lack of innings than actual lack of good pitching.
If I'm a team not named a Florida Marlins (aka not a cheap shot a-hole team who's operating with the only intention of rigging revenue sharing dollars) that have a Hanley Ramirez, I would not trade him for anything short of 2 A propsect and a couple of Bs, looking at John Sickle's current list, there is exactly 2 teams in the majors that have 3 A prospects. (Rangers and Rays)
If you think offering Vizcaino + Jackson (plus any other prospects not named Montero) = Hanley Ramirez, I think you have no clue on values in baseball. in fact, even if you trade the entire Yankee system top 10 prior to those two deals, it would not come close to netting Hanely Ramirez.
Of course, being the Marlins, they probably end up trading Hanely for less, but even then, the Yankee farm system is highly unlikely to be able to compete with other teams.
The closest comparable was the Ricky Henderson trade, but back then the Yankees had Jose Rijo, who was the best pitching prospect in baseball. (and would turn out to be a very good pitcher, maybe even a HOF pitcher if injuries hadn't derail him) Eric Plunk (who had a very nice year in A ball that year, and would turn in a reasonablly good career as a reliever) Stan Javier (who was kinda like Melky Cabrera of the day, turned in a long solid career mostly as a 4th OF) Jay Howell ( another useful reliever, though he was more of a known quality by then) and Tim Birtas (who had massive tools as a 6'7 240 lefty, he didn't turn out that well but as a prospect he was pretty good).
To compare, I would have rated Rijos a strait A and probably the best prospect in baseball at that point, Plunk a B+ , Javier and Birtas somewhere in the B range. and most people considered that trade a true high way robbery . even when the Yankees sat on their couches after their worest season in franchise history while Jose Rijo dominate game 1 and 4 of the 1990 WS.
even if the Marlins were forced by financial trouble, that above list is probably the abosalute minimum of what it would take to get Ramirez, which si certainly WELL above your supposed Vizcaino + Jackson theory . try Montero (rough equivalent to Rijo ) + Vizcaino (who's somewhat comparable to Plunk) Jackson (Javier) and a healthier version of Brackman / Betances . along with ... oh say a Brian Bruney (before he was traded)
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/the-biggest-deals-of-all-time/
So again, once you bring up the #2+#3 guy for Han-Ram, you lose all credibility. because if anything, the abosalute minimum it would take for a Han Ram is more like #1-#4 .
Everything in the Marlins history points to them eventually trading Ramirez-- not a bad thing to plan ahead for with a 36 year old SS with the range of an ocean liner and absolutely nothing in the syystem that even hints at starter potential at the position. And the pool of teams willing to take on the contract demands will be limited but, I doubt limited to your two. Don't think the Marlins will be consulting you and that Sickles scale :lol: when the time comes.
Plunk, considered a limited arsenal, relief specialist, even at the time of the trade comparable to Vizcaino, at the time of his trade-- and I'm the one with credibility issues:lol:
Try working on your reading skills before tackling theories. I said VIZCAINO, JACKSON AND OTHERS AS PART OF A PACKAGE FOR RAMIREZ.
what's up doc?
01-20-10, 05:43 AM
I can't believe this guy is complaining about the Granderson and Vasquez deal. I mean I could see if we gave up Montero for Halladay, but these prospects aren't blue-chip top prospects. Jackson value as a prospect has fallen over the past 2 years and wasn't improving at certain areas of his game that the Yankees wanted to see improvement in. And you're going to criticize a deal that got the Yankees a top 4 Cy Young candidate in the NL because of an 18 year old pitcher who's at the very least 3 years away from the majors?
That has to be a joke, right? Not to mention by the time those 2 players (if they even pan out) contribute to this team, we will be seeing less production from our core players (A-Rod, Jeter, Riveria, Posada).
The joke is how 2 marginal prospects were rated in the top 5 of the Yankee system and yet player development is doing just dandy.
No, I won't bother to argue with you about the pitcher who finished last year as a top 4 NL Cy Young candidate, I'll let this years preformance do the speaking for me.
And just as all the Jackson supporters on this site vanished over night, watch and see how all the support for this trade disappears just as fast.
what's up doc?
01-20-10, 05:46 AM
So long as we're trading for young players, cost controlled players and/or players that will return picks like Vazquez, I don't have a real problem with it.
It's the 34 year olds coming off career years that I want to stay away from. Trading a prospected like Jackson for a 28 year old all star like Granderson is fine by me.
You guys need to keep in mind that we're the Yankees. There is no room for a 75 OPS+ hitter in our lineup. Our #9 hitter had a 99 OPS+ and he got traded. Our current #9 hitter plays ++ defense in a prime position, steals a lot of bases and had a 93 OPS+. People are still screaming for an upgrade.
Keep the ones that project to be something good. Spin the rest off for something that is good. The 200 million dollar pay roll fills in the rest.
OK, so 34 year olds is where you draw the line? Not with 33 year olds having career years.
Yeah, we're the Yankees and the roster needs to be filled with a pathwork of expensive, veterans predictably trending towards over-payed, decline years. How else would Yankee fans appreciate the championship teams, where player development played the leading role, if we didn't have long stretches of hamstung payrolls and it's limiting effects on both the standings and the farm.
what's up doc?
01-20-10, 06:06 AM
None of us really knows this, do we? We haven't seen his medicals, and his track record doesn't suggest he'll pitch a full season
His track record indicates he won't pitch a full season but, it also indicates he will pitch effectively when he does.
RollingWave
01-20-10, 07:03 AM
Everything in the Marlins history points to them eventually trading Ramirez-- not a bad thing to plan ahead for with a 36 year old SS with the range of an ocean liner and absolutely nothing in the syystem that even hints at starter potential at the position. And the pool of teams willing to take on the contract demands will be limited but, I doubt limited to your two. Don't think the Marlins will be consulting you and that Sickles scale :lol: when the time comes.
Plunk, considered a limited arsenal, relief specialist, even at the time of the trade comparable to Vizcaino, at the time of his trade-- and I'm the one with credibility issues:lol:
Try working on your reading skills before tackling theories. I said VIZCAINO, JACKSON AND OTHERS AS PART OF A PACKAGE FOR RAMIREZ.
And who's your others? assuming we're not talking Montero here?
Your assuming that Vizcaino will continue to progress in the next 1 or 2 year. which is always a big IF when we're talking about A. teenagers B. pitchers C. guys that havn't even played full season. and Arody is all of the above.
I'm not very optimisitic on Jackson, if we go purely by the Stats (and really, it's AAA, time to show the good ) he aint even gonna be Melky Cabrera, but if we believe in his tools then maybe he could be better... but it is unlikely to be by a significant margin.
The Yankees have significant depth that MAYBE someone will emerge and be very valuable in the next year or two, but note the maybe here. last year at this time most people thought the biggest sleeper pitchers in the system (i.e, on the verge of a breakout) were Betances / Heredia / De La Rosa. that really turned out well didn't it, two got hurt, and most are almost ready to throw the bust lable on Dellin, where as De La Rosa had a decent but not exactly break out year (too many walks, not enough innings).
Not to meantion that non of thse address the point, we're not competing for 2012, we're competing for 2010 here. Granderson and Vazquez are significant upgrades over just about anything you could reasonablly get on the FA market. (minus magic healing water for Sheets and Bedard)
Dramatic overstatement.....mentions a 2B who is entering his late 20's and a CF who turns 30 this year. A young bullpen. Oh, lets not forget to throw in Gardener (who's status on the depth charts should be an inditement of the system.) Every other name mentioned is on the wrong side of thirty.
Truly core worthy, elite players extend their prime years. Swisher, for one, is already well into a downward slide, Granderson has just begun his. 34 is right at the age where pitchers with the mileage and make up of Vazquez begin their decline/injury phase. Ditto for Burnett and soon to follow, Sabbathia.
Wow, that's some kind of case to be made.
And the only thing being stretched is players being deemed as a part of the coreDramatic overstatement.....mentions a 2B who is entering his late 20's and a CF who turns 30 this year. A young bullpen. Oh, lets not forget to throw in Gardener (who's status on the depth charts should be an inditement of the system.) Every other name mentioned is on the wrong side of thirty.
Truly core worthy, elite players extend their prime years. Swisher, for one, is already well into a downward slide, Granderson has just begun his. 34 is right at the age where pitchers with the mileage and make up of Vazquez begin their decline/injury phase. Ditto for Burnett and soon to follow, Sabbathia.
Wow, that's some kind of case to be made.
And the only thing being stretched is players being deemed as a part of the core.
Robinson Cano seasonal age for 2010 = 27
Average age of AL batters in 2009 = 29.0
Yankees batter age for 2009 = 30.5
Youngest team average batter age for 2009 = 27.4
Nick Swisher career best OPS+ (pre 2009) 126
Nick Swisher OPS+ in 2009 : 129
Nick Swisher career best WAR (pre 2009) 3.6
Nick Swisher WAR in 2009: 3.5
Granderson in the present tense now might make it a reasonable statement, sort of like the same statement made on Cano and Swisher this time last year. there are signs that you can look at if a guy is truly declining in skills or is it simply a tough luck / normal flucation year. Granderson's # seem to point to the later (BABIP .05 points lower than career, not very significant flucation in K rate, line drive rate etc). but I will reserve judgement until the season suffice to say that right now , it is a questionable call. he could be declining but he could just as well bounce back. and if I'm a gambling man I'd certainly bet on the later.
But of course, going by the logic that Nick Swisher's 2009 (which was actually his career year) = steep decline, I can see how a 100 win Yankee team = suck
DWells4prez
01-20-10, 07:59 AM
Wam Bam Slam, Its Over Maam
I think Hal and Cash are smarter than most of us. Get the payroll under control this year, Major money comes off the books next year, (Igawa, Pettite, Vazquez, Jeter) I don't think Jeter signs again for 20m, A three year deal for 45m sounds about right (i jusdt wishing on this). Sign Carl Crawford to play left and the lefty from seattle and bring up either Nova or Bleich tp be the 5th starter and the world is right again
VTYankeesFan2
01-20-10, 03:06 PM
I think Hal and Cash are smarter than most of us. Get the payroll under control this year, Major money comes off the books next year, (Igawa, Pettite, Vazquez, Jeter) I don't think Jeter signs again for 20m, A three year deal for 45m sounds about right (i jusdt wishing on this). Sign Carl Crawford to play left and the lefty from seattle and bring up either Nova or Bleich tp be the 5th starter and the world is right again
Jeter isn't going to get $20mil again? Speculation at this point is he will very likely get just that much, if not more for his next deal. Just last week on MLB Network, Jon Heyman speculated a deal of 3 years, $75mil for Jeter. The avg annual salary sounds about right, but it may be for 4-5 years. That being said, whatever it costs the Yankees will pay. He is approaching (fast) 3,000 hits and seems to be at the top of his game, even at 35/36 years old. In early 2012 he should reach 3,000 hits, which would be a first for a career Yankee.
So, Jeter isn't coming off the books and Igawa technically isn't on them. I can't see Crawford coming to NY, as I agree that Lee will be a target and will be very expensive. My guess would be that a LF will be targeted, but not sure who. Also, I doubt that Bleich or Nova wwill be the 5th starter, since Joba and Hughes are better.
I'm A Wenner!
01-20-10, 03:08 PM
Heyman's insane. His AAV for his last deal was 18.9. He's not getting a higher AAV on his next deal. That doesn't make sense, since he's not the same player.
THEBOSS84
01-20-10, 03:10 PM
Heyman's insane. His AAV for his last deal was 18.9. He's not getting a higher AAV on his next deal. That doesn't make sense, since he's not the same player.
I wouldn't be surprised at all if DJ gets 3/60 or 4/80. You shouldn't be either. It's going to happen.
I'm A Wenner!
01-20-10, 03:36 PM
How does this make sense to anyone? He got a monster deal when he was 26 and entering his prime in an outstanding market. He's not the same player anymore. Why would he get a higher AAV?
THEBOSS84
01-20-10, 03:39 PM
How does this make sense to anyone? He got a monster deal when he was 26 and entering his prime in an outstanding market. He's not the same player anymore. Why would he get a higher AAV?
Because they won't give him a paycut. He's been making well over $18.9M over the last number of years.
I don't agree with this, it's just the way it's going to go down.
Snatch Catch
01-20-10, 03:40 PM
Because they won't give him a paycut. He's been making well over $18.9M over the last number of years.
I don't agree with this, it's just the way it's going to go down.
Wait a second, weren't you arguing against me with regards to that AAV?
THEBOSS84
01-20-10, 03:42 PM
Wait a second, weren't you arguing against me with regards to that AAV?
When? Refresh my memory.
yankee82093
01-20-10, 06:45 PM
Heyman's insane. His AAV for his last deal was 18.9. He's not getting a higher AAV on his next deal. That doesn't make sense, since he's not the same player.
sweet inflation. Not saying that he deserves a higher AAV though.
primetime714
01-20-10, 09:34 PM
How does this make sense to anyone? He got a monster deal when he was 26 and entering his prime in an outstanding market. He's not the same player anymore. Why would he get a higher AAV?
How is he not the same player? In 4 of the past 5 years he has put up an OPS+ equal or better than his career average. This past year was the best defensive year of his career and one of his best all-around. He stole 30 bases for the 4th time in his career this year. His OPS+ was tied for second best in his career. I fail to see how he is not the same player. Yes, his age is a concern and a decline will come eventually but he hasn't shown a single sign of that yet.
I agree with Boss, don't be surprised to see him get roughly 20M per. Why will he get more? Because its a shorter deal than the one he signed at 26 and because the Yankees simply can't afford to let him go to another team. They'll pay up to make sure the captain retires in pinstripes and the team doesn't have a whole lot of leverage because they would never let him walk and everyone knows it.
How is he not the same player? In 4 of the past 5 years he has put up an OPS+ equal or better than his career average. This past year was the best defensive year of his career and one of his best all-around. He stole 30 bases for the 4th time in his career this year. His OPS+ was tied for second best in his career. I fail to see how he is not the same player. Yes, his age is a concern and a decline will come eventually but he hasn't shown a single sign of that yet.
I agree with Boss, don't be surprised to see him get roughly 20M per. Why will he get more? Because its a shorter deal than the one he signed at 26 and because the Yankees simply can't afford to let him go to another team. They'll pay up to make sure the captain retires in pinstripes and the team doesn't have a whole lot of leverage because they would never let him walk and everyone knows it.
Two things come into play here one is the economy two is age he will be at the end of this next contract. Jeter is showing no signs of trying to play until he is 44. He is close to getting married and I think he is the type of player who will move on when he feels like it. I still say a 3yr contract at 15-18 a yr is in the ballpark, Two other variables come into play Rivera and Posada. How long will they stick around. Both are showing signs of decline with players waiting to take over.
VTYankeesFan2
01-21-10, 02:09 PM
Two things come into play here one is the economy two is age he will be at the end of this next contract. Jeter is showing no signs of trying to play until he is 44. He is close to getting married and I think he is the type of player who will move on when he feels like it. I still say a 3yr contract at 15-18 a yr is in the ballpark, Two other variables come into play Rivera and Posada. How long will they stick around. Both are showing signs of decline with players waiting to take over.
I think that Jeter's future will depend on the next 2 seasons and how he does. If he stays healthy and performs close to what he did in 2009, he will end 2011 with about 3,200 hits and he will be 37. Assuming that is true, I think he may try to push himself to see how long it takes him to get to 4,000. Quite honestly, I really don't believe that personal statistics drive him, rather World Series titles do and he knows that a continued high level of play from him equates to a higher chance of another ring. The one exception on personal statistics would be any chance he has to make a run at the hits record, since it is such an amazing achievement and level of sustained success.
Posada and Rivera may play a factor with him, but I also believe Jeter enjoys working with the younger generation and if he can continue playing at a high level and helping to develop the next group of Yankees to help carry on the dynasty, I think he would love that. Of course, if he is moved off SS at any point, then I think all bets are off.
Saxmania
01-22-10, 07:21 AM
Dramatic overstatement.....mentions a 2B who is entering his late 20's and a CF who turns 30 this year. A young bullpen. Oh, lets not forget to throw in Gardener (who's status on the depth charts should be an inditement of the system.) Every other name mentioned is on the wrong side of thirty.
Truly core worthy, elite players extend their prime years. Swisher, for one, is already well into a downward slide, Granderson has just begun his. 34 is right at the age where pitchers with the mileage and make up of Vazquez begin their decline/injury phase. Ditto for Burnett and soon to follow, Sabbathia.
Can you explain how Swisher is 'well into' his decline phase? Unless you mean that he won't see 28 again, which is true of many, many productive MLB players. Paul O'Neill was traded to New York at the same time as Swisher; he was pretty productive afterwards.
I know we'd all like the Yankees to be a team full of 26-year-old All Stars, but I think you're being ludicrously demanding and unrealistic. Swisher and Granderson's best years may (MAY) be in front of them; it's not like they're 38. If their peak is 27-32, which is a fair rule of thumb for position players, then Cashman's managed to pick them both up at a low cost after poor years. Swisher bounced back. Maybe Granderson will too; he certainly has the tools.
It's Gardner and Sabathia, by the way. Pretty sure about that.
Be seeing you,
Saxmania
Brick Tamland
01-22-10, 09:01 AM
I think that Jeter's future will depend on the next 2 seasons and how he does. If he stays healthy and performs close to what he did in 2009, he will end 2011 with about 3,200 hits and he will be 37. Assuming that is true, I think he may try to push himself to see how long it takes him to get to 4,000. Quite honestly, I really don't believe that personal statistics drive him, rather World Series titles do and he knows that a continued high level of play from him equates to a higher chance of another ring. The one exception on personal statistics would be any chance he has to make a run at the hits record, since it is such an amazing achievement and level of sustained success.
Posada and Rivera may play a factor with him, but I also believe Jeter enjoys working with the younger generation and if he can continue playing at a high level and helping to develop the next group of Yankees to help carry on the dynasty, I think he would love that. Of course, if he is moved off SS at any point, then I think all bets are off.
I know it's definitely possible for Jete to reach 4K but he'd have to be outrageously consistent for the next 5-6 years. I don't doubt he has it in him but man, seeing him get 4,000 hits would be insane.
Matsui55
01-22-10, 04:52 PM
Can you explain how Swisher is 'well into' his decline phase? Unless you mean that he won't see 28 again, which is true of many, many productive MLB players. Paul O'Neill was traded to New York at the same time as Swisher; he was pretty productive afterwards.
I know we'd all like the Yankees to be a team full of 26-year-old All Stars, but I think you're being ludicrously demanding and unrealistic. Swisher and Granderson's best years may (MAY) be in front of them; it's not like they're 38. If their peak is 27-32, which is a fair rule of thumb for position players, then Cashman's managed to pick them both up at a low cost after poor years. Swisher bounced back. Maybe Granderson will too; he certainly has the tools.
It's Gardner and Sabathia, by the way. Pretty sure about that.
Be seeing you,
Saxmania
Don't bother.
That guy thinks that a players prime years are before age 29, which is nowhere close to the truth.
I'm A Wenner!
01-22-10, 05:23 PM
Most hitters have their best season at age 26.
what's up doc?
01-22-10, 05:56 PM
Can you explain how Swisher is 'well into' his decline phase? Unless you mean that he won't see 28 again, which is true of many, many productive MLB players. Paul O'Neill was traded to New York at the same time as Swisher; he was pretty productive afterwards.
I know we'd all like the Yankees to be a team full of 26-year-old All Stars, but I think you're being ludicrously demanding and unrealistic. Swisher and Granderson's best years may (MAY) be in front of them; it's not like they're 38. If their peak is 27-32, which is a fair rule of thumb for position players, then Cashman's managed to pick them both up at a low cost after poor years. Swisher bounced back. Maybe Granderson will too; he certainly has the tools.
It's Gardner and Sabathia, by the way. Pretty sure about that.
Be seeing you,
Saxmania
O'Neill was a nice complimentary piece to a dynasty team, that was indeed built around a young core. The inclusion of Swisher, by some here, when refuting that the Yankees have an aging core is stretching it, to be kind. I look for trends in evaluating a players prime, which varies. Swisher's last two years were not as steady as the two that proceeded it, based almost entirely on the 2008 season. But what about his defense? Those '06 and '07 numbers are from an adequate defensive CF'er. He's now a corner outfielder, which makes those numbers less impressive and his overall value diminished. Can't play CF since '07 = well into downward spiral in my world. He is also making over ten times what he was making in '07, speaking of bad trends. And I was speaking about....from this point forward. The core's production WILL decline. Swisher and even more so Granderson, do not IM not so HO, fit the profile of players that will age well. As the core continues to age and their performances diminish, the Swisher's and Granderson's of the world are not the types to smoothly take the baton. Having to include them as core players speaks volumes as to reinforcing my premise.
The money going into the development system is been surpassed by several small market teams in recent years. The farm's ratings have dropped. Montero, Joba, and Hughes joined the system under a far different climate. They were added when the Yankees experienced the effects of a severely strapped roster by a revaged farm system. The lesson didn't last very long. There isn't near enough in the system to build that next core. Without it, the bloated roster is destined to be more tease than please.
This core, that still produces championships, was patiently built with a commitment of capital and uncommon restaint in keeping them in the system until they were able to contribute at the major league level WITH THE YANKEES. The veteran pick ups during the dynasty years were the supporting cast-- brilliantly assembled and not always of the biggest, most expensive names. History shows an all out effort in acquiring ametuer talent is the most cost efficient approach to building championships than the living from year-to-year, forever filling roster holes with these expensive veterans that forfeit the chance at building on to that future core (aka losing guys like Viz and Jack.) The present core was built when no Steinbrenner was present. Those days are gone for good. They now live almost exclusively for the present. It will catch up to them, shortly and no over-the-top support, in this forum, of the less-than-middling group of prospects will change that.
No way of knowing if Vizcaino and Jackson ever pan out. Simply feel that filling the present roster needs with FA that would cost no more then the players acquired without having to give away prospects possessing the potential to be worthy of a next generation, young core is the lesser gamble.
Bedard AND Sheets, plus Vizcaino > Vazquez
CF Byrd and LF Damon, plus Jackson > CF Granderson and LF Gardner
If Jackson becomes that low cost, two way CF'er while Vizcaino becomes a low cost, top-of-the-rotation stud, the cash savings can allow me to get much better veterans in the FA market than Vazquez and Granderson. That scenerio is worth the risk and worth waiting for, especially when you consider the present is as likely to be as good with the FA's added.
Time, as always, will tell.
teknetic
01-22-10, 06:53 PM
Bedard and Sheets + a guy who benefits greatly from a hitter friendly stadium. Incredible.
budstinks
01-22-10, 07:27 PM
I know it's definitely possible for Jete to reach 4K but he'd have to be outrageously consistent for the next 5-6 years. I don't doubt he has it in him but man, seeing him get 4,000 hits would be insane.
I'd love to see Jeter go for the record;
He's a first ballot HOFer and all-time great clutch player. But if he added the all-time hit record to his resume, he would be an immortal.
Seriously, he'd be mentioned with the Ruth's, Cobb's, May's and Aarons.
By itself its a nice record, with his other accomplishments its the crowning of a all-time great.
I'd love to see Jeter go for the record;
He's a first ballot HOFer and all-time great clutch player. But if he added the all-time hit record to his resume, he would be an immortal.
Seriously, he'd be mentioned with the Ruth's, Cobb's, May's and Aarons.
By itself its a nice record, with his other accomplishments its the crowning of a all-time great.
Rose has the record and no one thinks that he is better than Cobb, or in the Cobb's class.
budstinks
01-22-10, 07:40 PM
I know it's definitely possible for Jete to reach 4K but he'd have to be outrageously consistent for the next 5-6 years. I don't doubt he has it in him but man, seeing him get 4,000 hits would be insane.
Hits thru age 35 season.
Pete Rose 2760 Total 4256
Derek Jeter 2747
It's definitely doable. But Jete's still 1500 hits away. Rose had almost 800 hits over his 36-39 years. Pretty impressive.
If Jeter can stay healthy, get to 3,500 over the next 4 years? Well then you think he has to have a shot.
But he's gonna have to want it. He'd probably still get paid decently so it may be attractive, but odds are he'll be playing someplace other than SS.
That will be the deciding factor, whether he'll be able to swallow his pride and move or go out like Joe D in his prime.
budstinks
01-22-10, 07:42 PM
Rose has the record and no one thinks that he is better than Cobb, or in the Cobb's class.
Rose is a jerk, schmuck, banned from baseball, arsewhipe with 1/2 the post season resume Jeter has.
Cobb had it and he was the greatest of all-time in many's mind.
Although Rose was a 17 time all-star and did win a MVP with 64 Rbi's. That's pretty stout.
Interestingly I didn't remember how awful a base stealer Rose was. 198 sb's - 149 cs. As compared to Jeters 305-80.
The record actually hurt Rose's value. From 41 to 45, he never had a 100 OPS+ or above seasons. And he played 1B at that time. If Jeter wants the record, I'm 100% sure he would greatly hurt the team in his career last few years.
Rose is a jerk, schmuck, banned from baseball, arsewhipe with 1/2 the post season resume Jeter has.
Cobb had it and he was the greatest of all-time in many's mind.
Although Rose was a 17 time all-star and did win a MVP with 64 Rbi's. That's pretty stout.
Even at that time he broke the record, no one thought that he was better than Cobb or in his class. Rose himself also admitted that. HOF great? Definitely. Cobb's class? No way. Jeter shouldn't be and wouldn't be in Cobb's class even he breaks the record.
Interestingly Jeter only has one higher OPS+ season than Rose's "64RBI MVP" season. And Rose's MVP season was his 4th highest OPS+ season.
I'm A Wenner!
01-22-10, 11:33 PM
I love the idea that Swisher's contract is going to continue to multiply by 10 every two years, or that the fact that he's not being forced into CF is proof that he's declining.
Saxmania
01-23-10, 03:29 AM
O'Neill was a nice complimentary piece to a dynasty team, that was indeed built around a young core. The inclusion of Swisher, by some here, when refuting that the Yankees have an aging core is stretching it, to be kind.
Who says that Swisher has to be part of a core? For me, the core has been A-Rod, Jeter, Posada, Rivera, and is in the process of transition towards Tex, Cano, and possibly Granderson. As a corner outfield without elite production, I would describe Swisher as playing exactly the same role as O'Neill - useful complimentary piece who's not at the top of the table for his position but offers patience, power, and acceptable defense.
I look for trends in evaluating a players prime, which varies. Swisher's last two years were not as steady as the two that proceeded it, based almost entirely on the 2008 season.
Yes, he had a bad year. He bounced back to almost exactly his previous production level, vindicating Cashman's decision to pick him up for almost no cost. If he hadn't had a bad year in 2008, New York wouldn't have been able to acquire him for nothing, and he'd be being paid a heck of a lot more than he would now.
But what about his defense? Those '06 and '07 numbers are from an adequate defensive CF'er. He's now a corner outfielder, which makes those numbers less impressive and his overall value diminished. Can't play CF since '07 = well into downward spiral in my world.
Well, that's an opinion, but I wouldn't say that it's very definitive. He's just had the most productive offensive year of his life, and plays adequate defence in a position where defence isn't that important. It's a bit like complaining that A-Rod doesn't steal many bases any more. It's just not an important part of his game.
And the Yankees currently have two players who can play good-to-great CF defence. Why would it matter if Swisher still could? There's no way he'd push out Granderson.
He is also making over ten times what he was making in '07, speaking of bad trends.
Come on, this is just silly. A player's early years are his cheapest, and his salary rapidly increases when he hits arbitration/free agency. The money you save by not paying him for his production in 06/07 is money you spend when he hits free agency. There's no way you don't know this already.
Marlon Byrd made $800k in 2006 but $6m+ in 2009! Oh NOES!
And I was speaking about....from this point forward. The core's production WILL decline. Swisher and even more so Granderson, do not IM not so HO, fit the profile of players that will age well. As the core continues to age and their performances diminish, the Swisher's and Granderson's of the world are not the types to smoothly take the baton. Having to include them as core players speaks volumes as to reinforcing my premise.
I don't think Swisher's core. Granderson may be. But no profile projects to age without decline; the ones who do are those who defied that projection by definition.
It CERTAINLY doesn't reinforce your premise, it just re-states it. It's a statement that 'Granderson and Swisher aren't very good, and they can't help the new core. I can prove it! The fact that the core will have to rely on Granderson and Swisher when they're not very good proves it!" Uh, no, it's just re-stating the unproven premise, based on you not liking them (yet, mysteriously, liking Byrd).
The money going into the development system is been surpassed by several small market teams in recent years. The farm's ratings have dropped. Montero, Joba, and Hughes joined the system under a far different climate. They were added when the Yankees experienced the effects of a severely strapped roster by a revaged farm system. The lesson didn't last very long. There isn't near enough in the system to build that next core. Without it, the bloated roster is destined to be more tease than please.
Didn't we just win a World Series? We have one of the best prospects in baseball, and recently graduated several other players (Hughes, Chamberlain, Cabrera, Gardner, Robertson, Coke, even Cano and Wang) to the majors. Strange time to panic.
Bedard AND Sheets, plus Vizcaino > Vazquez
But more expensive, I would expect, and maybe needing multi-year commitments. Vazquez is one-and-done, which adds flexibility - you can choose to re-sign him, or let him go.
CF Byrd and LF Damon, plus Jackson > CF Granderson and LF Gardner
But more expensive, at least when the decision point was reached on Granderson and Damon wanted $10/year. What's this Byrd thing about? He's older than Granderson and Swisher and had a bad year last year; he's not got the track-record of production of either (compare his yearly OPS+ totals). Although he's pretty good defensively, I see no reason to believe he's somehow more likely to defy his age than Granderson or Swisher - particularly as he's further along the age axis!
And then Damon. Damon? Really? You want to build a young, cheap, good defensive core for the future and you want Damon? Byrd's an outfield mediocrity and Damon's a one-year stopgap at best. That's a big assumption, that you aren't weakening a WS team for no reason. Cashman apparently is much more creative; he's re-building on the fly.
There was a time to re-build in New York without stretching everything to compete. Instead of going for Sheffield, Brown, Johnson, we could have been looking for younger, cheaper, healthier options, but we didn't. Now we ARE, and instead we should be signing Byrd and Damon? I'm lost.
If Jackson becomes that low cost, two way CF'er while Vizcaino becomes a low cost, top-of-the-rotation stud, the cash savings can allow me to get much better veterans in the FA market than Vazquez and Granderson. That scenerio is worth the risk and worth waiting for, especially when you consider the present is as likely to be as good with the FA's added.
No, it's not worth the risk. Viz' chances of being what you describe are less than 1 in 10, given that TANSTAAPP, and Jackson might be Granderson, but he might also be a lot less. That's betting $50 on a 1-in-4 chance to win $75.
Yes, I miss some of our minor leaguers too. No, you can't build your 2012 team around them. Just as I like my lottery tickets very much, but I'm not buying a boat with them, particularly when I've already got a very nice one.
Be seeing you,
Saxmania
teknetic
01-23-10, 01:05 PM
Andy MacPhail basically just said that the O's liked Bedard's "competitiveness" and that he didn't have any red flags in his medical report, but that he still wasn't close to being ready.
hurhurhrur, better than a guy who's a lock for 200 innings.
I'm A Wenner!
01-23-10, 01:35 PM
Gardner in LF and Granderson in CF would be more valuable than Byrd in CF and Damon in LF. First of all, that's probably in the range of 20 runs on defense (maybe 30), and I would peg them as pretty much a wash on offense. I'm not a Byrd fan, at all.
what's up doc?
01-23-10, 09:06 PM
"I don't think Swisher's core. Granderson may be. But no profile projects to age without decline; the ones who do are those who defied that projection by definition.
It CERTAINLY doesn't reinforce your premise, it just re-states it. It's a statement that 'Granderson and Swisher aren't very good, and they can't help the new core. I can prove it! The fact that the core will have to rely on Granderson and Swisher when they're not very good proves it!" Uh, no, it's just re-stating the unproven premise, based on you not liking them (yet, mysteriously, liking Byrd)."
I stated that the core of this team is getting old. Another poster, in refuting my claim, brought up Swisher's age as evidence to the contrary. To which I replied that having to include Swisher in the arguement OF CORE PLAYERS is proof of there being no real young core worth mentioning.
"They can't help the new core." What new core?
Joba is a high injury risk and is proving to be best suited for short relief. Hughes is still a two pitch pitcher and will almost certainly stay that way = success at short relief at the MLB level. Add 2 more potential young relievers, with lower ceilings. Cano will be 28 this year and is an above average 2b, not likely to improve on that. Is this group, even with the FA binge of '09 going to strick fear in Red Sox nation after the real core's time is up? Pleeeease.
There is that shining star on the horizon. With the rest of this group he stands way out there. Needed more of his calibre. Very likely gave one away i9n Vizcaino.
And I will say it again, SWISHER'S BAT IN CF IS OF VALUE. IN RF :o BIG DIFFERENCE.
I am not above rubbing the noises of posters of your ilk when time proves who is right. Vizcaino's prospect status will sky rocket this year. Vazquez will be a bum and most here will do their typical 180 degree turn around. Granderson and Swisher will not preform anywhere near their top years.
Bedard and Sheets / Damon and Byrd may be a bit more expensive, but not nearly as costly as giving up on Vizcaino and Jackson for equal production. Mystery in liking Byrd? I get to keep Jackson! If that farm system really means something to Cash and Hank, spend the extra capital to field a WSC team without giving up on two of your highest end prospects. Check out Byrd and Reed Johnson's righty/lefty splits. Sign them both, Johnson would take a one year deal and Byrd would make an excellent 4th OF'er upon Jacksons arrival.
We can go back and forth all you like but, all will be revealed in the short course of one season. Lets see whos limb gets cut off.
what's up doc?
01-23-10, 09:09 PM
Andy MacPhail basically just said that the O's liked Bedard's "competitiveness" and that he didn't have any red flags in his medical report, but that he still wasn't close to being ready.
hurhurhrur, better than a guy who's a lock for 200 innings.
First two months you can get by with four starters and Acevedos. Makes me even more pissed they didn't take that route.
I'm A Wenner!
01-23-10, 11:13 PM
Swisher had like a .300 EqA last year. That's valuable at any position.
Bedard and Sheets / Damon and Byrd may be a bit more expensive, but not nearly as costly as giving up on Vizcaino and Jackson for equal production. Mystery in liking Byrd? I get to keep Jackson! If that farm system really means something to Cash and Hank, spend the extra capital to field a WSC team without giving up on two of your highest end prospects. Check out Byrd and Reed Johnson's righty/lefty splits. Sign them both, Johnson would take a one year deal and Byrd would make an excellent 4th OF'er upon Jacksons arrival.
We can go back and forth all you like but, all will be revealed in the short course of one season. Lets see whos limb gets cut off.
Actually, the whole idea and premise of a farm system and prospects serves more than one purpose. Two of the main purposes being: 1) Prospects that ultimately contribute to the major league team, and 2) Prospects used as a trade chip to fulfill other needs.
Another thing, it's clear that your idea for how the Yankees should operate is severely flawed. Your expectation: (1) Yankees should have $200 million payroll; (2) Should never trade a Top 10 prospect (or any prospects that hints to have "star" potential) unless for Hanley, Pujols, Felix, Ruth, or Koufax;(3) Should spend atleast $10 million annually in Latin America;(4) Should select the player available that Baseball America rates the highest with each pick in the draft.
As far as the #2 expectation, you do understand how that philosophy will get you nowhere right? (For the sake of your shtick, I'm assuming you don't.) But if you need an exercise to keep yourself busy, go back and look at various team's Top 10 Prospect lists. Then find out just how many of those "star" type prospects, (Montero, Vizcaino, Jackson, etc type) actually panned out. After you get that absurdly low number, you're honestly going to chastise the Yankees for using their farm system efficiently and appropriately? Chastise them for trading prospects that have what, a 5% chance of being above average players in exchange for players that have say an 85% chance of being above average beginning THIS season?
#3 expectation: That's just a poor strategy in any type of business. Hording prospects in this nature will result in a lot of money wasted and would also make that whole "financial advantage" thing go away rather quickly.
#4 expectation: If you want, go review all the Top 100 draft prospects over the years. I'll bet you'd find that the chances of those players turning out to be anything special are even more bleak than the putrid chances of the organizational Top 10. It's safe to say you rely on anonymous scouts and these publications WAAAAY too much.
Now on with your schtick...
teknetic
01-23-10, 11:21 PM
So, even after he misses the first two months, it's still a better deal than Vasquez? But hell, we do have Acevedos.
-Swisher was the third best RF in the AL last year.
-Joba dealt with tendinitis prior to being drafted and then dealt with a shoulder ailment that derailed him for a month. High injury risk, right.
-Marlon Byrd was a product of Arlington, but lets go ahead and pay him 12x what Gardner is making because that would be the cool thing to do.
-Cano turns 28 when the playoffs roll around.
You continuously spew nonsense while ignoring facts just so your terribly thought up theories have a ground to stand on. It's seriously one of the saddest things I've seen on this forum.
what's up doc? = Disabled Mess?
Saxmania
01-24-10, 03:50 AM
I am not above rubbing the noises of posters of your ilk when time proves who is right. Vizcaino's prospect status will sky rocket this year. Vazquez will be a bum and most here will do their typical 180 degree turn around. Granderson and Swisher will not preform anywhere near their top years.
We will see, indeed, how these players preform. Although I suspect they're already formed. Even Acevedos.
Swisher had a good year for any position, not just CF. A 129 OPS+ plays anywhere up to and including DH, your all-caps screaming aside.
Viz is a good prospect. That doesn't make him a good MLB pitcher.
You write off Hughes and Chamberlain with startling speed. I have a fair degree of confidence that one or both will become MLB starters, based on what they've already shown in the majors.
Be seeing you,
Saxmania
what's up doc?
01-24-10, 01:28 PM
"Another thing, it's clear that your idea for how the Yankees should operate is severely flawed. Your expectation: (1) Yankees should have $200 million payroll; (2) Should never trade a Top 10 prospect (or any prospects that hints to have "star" potential) unless for Hanley, Pujols, Felix, Ruth, or Koufax;(3) Should spend atleast $10 million annually in Latin America;(4) Should select the player available that Baseball America rates the highest with each pick in the draft."
I see no flaws at all, except for the stupid BA reference, which was never mentioned by yours truly.
what's up doc?
01-24-10, 01:36 PM
I love the idea that Swisher's contract is going to continue to multiply by 10 every two years, or that the fact that he's not being forced into CF is proof that he's declining.
The only thing continuing to multiply by ten is your twisted interpetations. Forced? Swisher liked playing CF. He no long can play CF.
what's up doc?
01-24-10, 01:40 PM
Gardner in LF and Granderson in CF would be more valuable than Byrd in CF and Damon in LF. First of all, that's probably in the range of 20 runs on defense (maybe 30), and I would peg them as pretty much a wash on offense. I'm not a Byrd fan, at all.
20, maybe 30 runs, that is a classic. Only on this site could such uninformed drivel get glossed over.
Read what Bill James has to say about defense.
what's up doc?
01-24-10, 01:44 PM
So, even after he misses the first two months, it's still a better deal than Vasquez? But hell, we do have Acevedos.
-Swisher was the third best RF in the AL last year.
-Joba dealt with tendinitis prior to being drafted and then dealt with a shoulder ailment that derailed him for a month. High injury risk, right.
-Marlon Byrd was a product of Arlington, but lets go ahead and pay him 12x what Gardner is making because that would be the cool thing to do.
-Cano turns 28 when the playoffs roll around.
You continuously spew nonsense while ignoring facts just so your terribly thought up theories have a ground to stand on. It's seriously one of the saddest things I've seen on this forum.
The cool thing to do is for me to check back here after the facts and see who was correct. And you are the one I look forward to most of all. :evil:
"Another thing, it's clear that your idea for how the Yankees should operate is severely flawed. Your expectation: (1) Yankees should have $200 million payroll; (2) Should never trade a Top 10 prospect (or any prospects that hints to have "star" potential) unless for Hanley, Pujols, Felix, Ruth, or Koufax;(3) Should spend atleast $10 million annually in Latin America;(4) Should select the player available that Baseball America rates the highest with each pick in the draft."
I see no flaws at all, except for the stupid BA reference, which was never mentioned by yours truly.
The flaws are quite obvious in fact. By basically telling teams you refuse to trade prospects with imminent star potential (Montero), prospects with star potential at least 3 years away (Vizcaino), and prospects with the chance to be above average (Jackson), the Yankees would be prohibited from making any significant trades. So that eliminates one of the 4 avenues available to Yankees to utilize to improve their team.
By signing the top 5 "rated" Latin America prospects each year, the Yankees would have to spend what, $15 million each year? And if the Yankees were to select the highest "rated" player available in the draft set by Baseball America (or whichever publication you choose), and signed say 25 of them, they would have to spend another $25 million at least right?
You really think it's fiscally responsible, efficient, smart, etc to spend $40+ million every year on AMATEUR prospects, all in addition to a $200 million major league payroll? That's a tremendous amount of lost money each year. At least the Mitres and Gaudins of the world provide SOME benefit to the team. Even if its just mop up innings to give the rotation/bullpen a breather.
ArodMVP217
01-24-10, 10:52 PM
"Another thing, it's clear that your idea for how the Yankees should operate is severely flawed. Your expectation: (1) Yankees should have $200 million payroll; (2) Should never trade a Top 10 prospect (or any prospects that hints to have "star" potential) unless for Hanley, Pujols, Felix, Ruth, or Koufax;(3) Should spend atleast $10 million annually in Latin America;(4) Should select the player available that Baseball America rates the highest with each pick in the draft."
I see no flaws at all, except for the stupid BA reference, which was never mentioned by yours truly.
Be realistic, if you were running the yanks, you would maybe spend 15 mil combined on amateurs. They are still a business! don't forget stadium payments, as well.
TheHugeUnit2
01-25-10, 09:49 AM
Be realistic, if you were running the yanks, you would maybe spend 15 mil combined on amateurs. They are still a business! don't forget stadium payments, as well.
Well I would come to think that buying the talent for 20 million in a draft is a lot better than buying it for 160 million when it's on the free agent market.
Yankee Fan in Boston
01-25-10, 10:11 AM
Well I would come to think that buying the talent for 20 million in a draft is a lot better than buying it for 160 million when it's on the free agent market.
The draft is a highly speculative investment -- you have very little idea what you are going to get. It also doesn't help improve your team and continue to drive revenue for years.
Well I would come to think that buying the talent for 20 million in a draft is a lot better than buying it for 160 million when it's on the free agent market.
Or you can say that buying the talent for $160M is a lot better than buying nothing for $20M. I support buying talents in a draft. But there are reasons why the FA cost $160M because you know what you get. You get an All-Star level player immediately. People may think that we can throw $20M in a draft every year and we must get something back in 8 tries. I agree but we ignore the time factor. Being a contender every year, the Yankees can't just take the risk for hoping the "talents" produce. Also, not putting $20M in a draft every year may be because their scouting department just thinks those talents are not as good as people think.
TheHugeUnit2
01-25-10, 11:30 AM
If you spent 20 million plus another 8 million(the original budget) and you don't get a good player then you got a scouting problem. If someone spent $28 million on the draft......I can say right now thats going to be a hell of a draft unless your GM is Omar.
But there are reasons why the FA cost $160M because you know what you get.
Well 160 yeah, but you can't say its fact. I name plenty of f/a busts like Zito, Pavano, Wood, Hall, Giambi(even though he had two or three good years), etc. I'm not against signing CC, but if someone said you can have Abreu for $12 million or take that $12 million and spend it on the draft and I'd spend it on the draft, but thats just me.
If you spent 20 million plus another 8 million(the original budget) and you don't get a good player then you got a scouting problem. If someone spent $28 million on the draft......I can say right now thats going to be a hell of a draft unless your GM is Omar.
Well 160 yeah, but you can't say its fact. I name plenty of f/a busts like Zito, Pavano, Wood, Hall, Giambi(even though he had two or three good years), etc. I'm not against signing CC, but if someone said you can have Abreu for $12 million or take that $12 million and spend it on the draft and I'd spend it on the draft, but thats just me.
The problem is that now some propects just got $20M. So basically you may be able to sign 2 or 3 talents if we go after every top talents the media love.
And if the GM spends $160M on someone like Zito, then it's the problem of the GM. And Giambi was far from bust. His OPS+ in Yankees was 143. He had 4 great years, 1 decent year and 2 bad years in Yankees.
I'm not saying the Yankees should not spend on draft. But I just want to point out that maybe sometime they are just not high on some prospects who are loved by the media or other teams. There are reasons they spend a lot in LA. It's not only about signing bonus. They spend a lot in training facilities, scouting department. I hate to see whenever a high price talent was signed by other teams, some Yankees fans complained.
TheHugeUnit2
01-25-10, 12:16 PM
The problem is that now some propects just got $20M. So basically you may be able to sign 2 or 3 talents if we go after every top talents the media love.
And if the GM spends $160M on someone like Zito, then it's the problem of the GM. And Giambi was far from bust. His OPS+ in Yankees was 143. He had 4 great years, 1 decent year and 2 bad years in Yankees.
I'm not saying the Yankees should not spend on draft. But I just want to point out that maybe sometime they are just not high on some prospects who are loved by the media or other teams. There are reasons they spend a lot in LA. It's not only about signing bonus. They spend a lot in training facilities, scouting department. I hate to see whenever a high price talent was signed by other teams, some Yankees fans complained.Well if someone gets $20 million in a draft..
I would take Strasburg over a lot of the free agents this year.
Well if someone gets $20 million in a draft..
I would take Strasburg over a lot of the free agents this year.
Me too, but we are not getting Strasburg and maybe the teams' target players were drafted by others? What's the point of spending $20M on talents when the team only think they worth $10M?
teknetic
01-25-10, 12:22 PM
The cool thing to do is for me to check back here after the facts and see who was correct. And you are the one I look forward to most of all. :evil:
I'd laugh at you for being wrong about Vasquez, Swisher, and Granderson, but you'll probably take another hiatus to spend some quality time with your "friends."
Yankee Fan in Boston
01-25-10, 12:40 PM
Well if someone gets $20 million in a draft..
I would take Strasburg over a lot of the free agents this year.
If Strasburg was available on the open market he would have gotten more money
TheHugeUnit2
01-25-10, 03:01 PM
If Strasburg was available on the open market he would have gotten more money
Thats what I'm saying here.
what's up doc?
01-25-10, 04:12 PM
Be realistic, if you were running the yanks, you would maybe spend 15 mil combined on amateurs. They are still a business! don't forget stadium payments, as well.
Realistically, I advocate that the Yankees bit-the-bullet on cost by filling roster spots through free agency until they build up the farm system from bottom-to-top. Once a pipeline is established, there is a means for filling roster openings with cost controlled, impact talent from within. Look no further than the current bullpen-- I'd love to see the rest of the team resemble that unit (better results for a fraction of the cost.) As this talent improves, one-peg-at-a-time, at the MLB level, the feeder system will have more talent lining up. One of the many nice features of this system is that as players begin to cost more, they are headed towards their prime years. As truly elite talents become available through free agency or a trade just before free agency, the Yankees will have the capital and prospect chips to make them the preeminent destination for these Yankee-esque talents. Signing the best-in-the-biz talent that still have prime years left are less risky investments: 1) you manage to sign them in their prime years and 2) Elite level players tend to extend their prime years beyond that of the average player. This will be made possible in no small part by the influx of cost controlled, impact, farm talent coming up through the ranks.
Some of the best young talent in the league accompanied by some of the best, prime age talent would produce something really good. Maybe even special, as in dynasty. And if the farm system is really in full effect, the big name free agents won't be a necessity in bringing championship seasons. It's been done before by every Yankee dynasty before the draft began through aggressive scouting and league leading signing bonuses. And it's hardly a coinsidence that the Yankees suffered through a long drought just after the draft era began. There was one Yankee dynasty during modern times. The Yankees of 1996 to 2001. The payroll for those years was much more in line with other big market clubs of the time. Much more so than most of the '80's and the '00's. Yet the results were far more pleasing to Yankee fans. Solid evidence that an emphasis on the farm system is more cost efficient and produces greater results-- more bag with less bucks.
That special dynasty was forged through a total, comprehensive commitment to player development-- when the league did Gene Michaels and the Yankees a collosal favor and took George away. As the young core that was destined to dominate began to ascend on the baseball world the other component was not the biggest name, most expensive free agents on the market. They were savy, high character veterans. High end role players who knew their part and how to play it in pressure packed situations.
Prospect projection is a spoty proposition. To which the proper response, IMO, is "cast a bigger net." To build such a system would be costly. It would require patience the Yankee FO does not possess. There would be many busts along the way. And it would be the best cost-of-doing-business capital the Steinbrenner's ever spent.
what's up doc?
01-25-10, 04:21 PM
I'd laugh at you for being wrong about Vasquez, Swisher, and Granderson, but you'll probably take another hiatus to spend some quality time with your "friends."
Flattered to hear you plan on continuing to monitor my activities. But there will be no reason for me not to be here for that.
But come to think of it spending quality time with friends is much preferred to reading drivel from you.
Matsui55
01-25-10, 07:18 PM
Be realistic, if you were running the yanks, you would maybe spend 15 mil combined on amateurs. They are still a business! don't forget stadium payments, as well.
This is why this entire thread was a bad idea- giving someone who vents talk radio garbage like its fact somewhere to get on a soapbox is just asking for frustration.
I'm A Wenner!
01-25-10, 10:50 PM
It's a lot harder to develop starting pitchers and everyday players than bullpen arms. That's the #1 reason people don't want to piss away Hughes or Chamberlain in the bullpen.
what's up doc?
01-26-10, 12:56 AM
This is why this entire thread was a bad idea- giving someone who vents talk radio garbage like its fact somewhere to get on a soapbox is just asking for frustration.
Bud's starting this thread was a wonderful thing. Us real Yankee fans, with demands and expectation finally get our own thread. Since this got started you don't see me posting on the thread where you vote on who you think is the 87th best Yankee prospect and make up something sunny to say about him as you go along. :roflmao:
I'm no longer bursting balloons on the other threads. You fragile types really should do yourselves a favor and stay away.
what's up doc?
01-26-10, 01:05 AM
It's a lot harder to develop starting pitchers and everyday players than bullpen arms. That's the #1 reason people don't want to piss away Hughes or Chamberlain in the bullpen.
Let me take that down. As those Guiness guys used to say "brilliant."
Although, other than the cream of the crop closers, bullpens and veteran bullpen preformers are notoriously inconsistent. Lots of bad money dolled out every year in futile efforts at building a stable bullpen.
JavyVazquezIsSick
01-26-10, 08:10 AM
Two n's.
teknetic
01-26-10, 09:57 AM
Bud's starting this thread was a wonderful thing. Us real Yankee fans, with demands and expectation finally get our own thread. Since this got started you don't see me posting on the thread where you vote on who you think is the 87th best Yankee prospect and make up something sunny to say about him as you go along. :roflmao:
I'm no longer bursting balloons on the other threads. You fragile types really should do yourselves a favor and stay away.
Like a train wreck, can't help but watch, etc.
Saxmania
01-26-10, 12:06 PM
Bud's starting this thread was a wonderful thing. Us real Yankee fans, with demands and expectation finally get our own thread. Since this got started you don't see me posting on the thread where you vote on who you think is the 87th best Yankee prospect and make up something sunny to say about him as you go along. :roflmao:
I'm no longer bursting balloons on the other threads. You fragile types really should do yourselves a favor and stay away.
Yes, leap right over that shark! That's the spirit!
Be seeing you,
Saxmania
budstinks
01-26-10, 01:07 PM
This is why this entire thread was a bad idea- giving someone who vents talk radio garbage like its fact somewhere to get on a soapbox is just asking for frustration.
I've loved it. Mainly because every other thread isn't ruined by off topic garbage.
The guy is a little over the top, but I don't think many disagree with the main points, just the delivery.
The Yankees should use their resources to spend the most money internationally and on the draft EVERY YEAR.
They should use their resources to scout these players more intensely via more scouts/bigger travel budgets/bigger signing bonus', etc.
If a player is estimated to be worth $1 mil, by the scouting world as a whole and by the Yankees, they should be willing to spend $1.2 mil because THEY CAN.
Hankie boy shouldn't lip about what he'e GONNA do. Just do it and shut up. (unfortunately, he just shut up).All that said, the Yanks can't sign EVERY good player out there. I personally think the Tex signing hit them in the wallet hard. It SEEMS that they have slowed their pace a little. Maybe not if we look at the facts.
I agree a lot with the guy, I just don't hate the Yankee front office for it.
Tom Finnigan
01-26-10, 03:55 PM
This is a dramatic overstatement.
Posada is clearly on his last Yankee contract- but the Yanks appear to be covered between Montero and Romine. Both are VERY young (early 20s)
Jeter is not going to be a SS much longer (though he can move to the OF and add a few useful years to his career). Keep in mind that while this is a tough fix, watch what happens with Hanley Ramirez- his contract begins to get VERY large (up to 1/3 of the Marlins projected payroll) by 2011. The Yanks might be in a position to make a move after this season. HRam is in his mid 20's.
Mo is aging- despite what the ostrichs here say- but Joba is a quite acceptable alternative- and in his mid 20's.
ARod is 33- he did respond well after the hip surgery, and will now be forced to take the extra measures to keep himself in peak condition. The DH spot will be his in 2-3 years, but he will still be among MLB's elite for some time.
Tex is 30- not an issue.
Cano is in his 20's- not an issue.
Granderson is in his 20's- not an issue.
Swisher turns 30 this coming November- not an issue.
Gardner, assuming he is the LF, is in his 20's- not an issue.
The pitching:
This is likely Pettitte's last season. He's a #3 SP who is older and did have arm surgery 3 years ago. However, no apparent problems since. He will likely be told that his time in NY is up after this season, as the Yanks will chase the big FA SP in the off-season.
CC turns 30 in July- not an issue.
AJ turned 33 in January- that's borderline age- he has had durability problems in the past- but has put together 2 full seasons in a row. Some concern, but not high concern.
Vasquez is 34- but has been VERY durable for years- hasn't made less than 32 starts since 1999. Not much concern as he is a FA this winter.
Hughes and Joba- early 20's- not an issue.
Rest of Yankees bullpen not named Mo or Marter- all in 20's no issues. Marte is 35, but is a bit player in the pen- might not be more than a situational lefty.
In short, saying that the Yanks "core" is old is REALLY stretching the truth.
Jeter, Posada, Pettitte, and Mo are significantly older. However, viable existing alternatives for Mo and Posada exist already. Pettitte and Vasquez are VERY likely to be replaced in FA next offseason (pick 2 from Lilly, Lee, Webb and others).
That just leaves the Yanks without a viable existing Jeter alternative (no, Pena will not be the answer). That means a hard decision must be made after this season- btu the Yanks have the resources to make whatever trade is necessary.
Let's stop being a bunch of Nancies and think first.
A lot of to do about nothing. This all is out of context with my BRIEF" comment. The Nancy comment warrants the sharkboy label.
RollingWave
01-27-10, 03:49 AM
O'Neill was a nice complimentary piece to a dynasty team, that was indeed built around a young core. The inclusion of Swisher, by some here, when refuting that the Yankees have an aging core is stretching it, to be kind. I look for trends in evaluating a players prime, which varies. Swisher's last two years were not as steady as the two that proceeded it, based almost entirely on the 2008 season. But what about his defense? Those '06 and '07 numbers are from an adequate defensive CF'er. He's now a corner outfielder, which makes those numbers less impressive and his overall value diminished. Can't play CF since '07 = well into downward spiral in my world. He is also making over ten times what he was making in '07, speaking of bad trends. And I was speaking about....from this point forward. The core's production WILL decline. Swisher and even more so Granderson, do not IM not so HO, fit the profile of players that will age well. As the core continues to age and their performances diminish, the Swisher's and Granderson's of the world are not the types to smoothly take the baton. Having to include them as core players speaks volumes as to reinforcing my premise.
Nick Swisher INNINGS in CF before 2009
04: 1
05: 0
06: 2
07: 481 (-8.8 UZR150)
08: 535 ( -10.9 UZR 150)
I'm seeing a guy who wasn't a CF to begin with, was put in there in 07 because the A's other CF's (which included Mark Kotsay and a injured then traded Milton Bradly plus a bunch of no names) were terrible and he's the best of 3 bad options. Then the White Sox foolishly did not realize this and decided that it was a good idea to start him there full time 08 and took a few months before they realize they're retarded. your spinning it as if he was a good CF then steadily declined into a old hobbled corner.
No one is talking about Nick Swisher and Curtis Granderson as the "core" although they would be core playeres on many lesser teams. we are discussing them because you brought up that they're "declining players" . while you spilled out yourself that true elite players "Extend their prime" unless you feel that Jeter and A-rod aren't truly elite players (in which case the truly elite player in the history of baseball would include about 20 players or less) . and then went on to blab about the lesser supporting cast players .
Do you even read your own post and see the highly self contracdictory comments one after another? you went on and on about Arody and Ajax then blubed that they're "marginal prospects"
The money going into the development system is been surpassed by several small market teams in recent years. The farm's ratings have dropped. Montero, Joba, and Hughes joined the system under a far different climate. They were added when the Yankees experienced the effects of a severely strapped roster by a revaged farm system. The lesson didn't last very long. There isn't near enough in the system to build that next core. Without it, the bloated roster is destined to be more tease than please.
This core, that still produces championships, was patiently built with a commitment of capital and uncommon restaint in keeping them in the system until they were able to contribute at the major league level WITH THE YANKEES. The veteran pick ups during the dynasty years were the supporting cast-- brilliantly assembled and not always of the biggest, most expensive names. yes, like that Roger Clemens fellow, such a support cast guy that isn't a top name!
http://www.baseballprojection.com/war/top500p.htm
1. Cy Young 146.0
2. Roger Clemens 128.4
3. Walter Johnson 127.7
Oh yeah, and it's not like they traded for a guy that won the Cy young two years before joining the Yankees like David Cone. or another guy that finished 2nd in the Cy votings once before joining and once with the Yankees. you know, like that Jimmy Key guy.
And yup, they never traded for aging guys on the decline for a lot of good prospects
David Justice June 29, 2000: Traded by the Cleveland Indians (http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/CLE/2000.shtml) to the New York Yankees (http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/NYY/2000.shtml) for Zach Day (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/d/dayza01.shtml), Ricky Ledee (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/l/ledeeri01.shtml) and Jake Westbrook (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/w/westbja01.shtml).
The Yankees traded and signed both big names AND supporting cast in the 90s. to say otherwise is being blind or highly unsubjective.
Also, Paul O'Neil drove in 100 + runs 6 times and had a OPS + above 130 5 times while with the Yankees . if those are supporting cast #, then Barry Bonds is just your everyday garden variety HOF slugger.
History shows an all out effort in acquiring ametuer talent is the most cost efficient approach to building championships than the living from year-to-year, forever filling roster holes with these expensive veterans that forfeit the chance at building on to that future core (aka losing guys like Viz and Jack.) The present core was built when no Steinbrenner was present. Those days are gone for good. They now live almost exclusively for the present. It will catch up to them, shortly and no over-the-top support, in this forum, of the less-than-middling group of prospects will change that. is it really? there's a balance to everything, if you have Albert Pujols at 10M a year . do you trade him for the farm system of any random team? even the best once? prospects today are not as cheap as your making it sound, top IFAs routinely sign for 1M or 2M or more. and there's no guarentee they always pan out. the biggest catch on the IFA in the year that the Yankees signed Montero was Angels Villaona, who was arrested last year in the DR .... for murder.
You take your chances, there is no clearly right or wrong answers for anything, the Red Sox won a championship in 07 thx to the Josh Beckett trade, they also traded away a guy who now seems like a highly likely HOF player. (As likely as a guy can be at age 25 anyway)
No way of knowing if Vizcaino and Jackson ever pan out. Simply feel that filling the present roster needs with FA that would cost no more then the players acquired without having to give away prospects possessing the potential to be worthy of a next generation, young core is the lesser gamble.
Bedard AND Sheets, plus Vizcaino > Vazquez
CF Byrd and LF Damon, plus Jackson > CF Granderson and LF Gardner
If Jackson becomes that low cost, two way CF'er while Vizcaino becomes a low cost, top-of-the-rotation stud, the cash savings can allow me to get much better veterans in the FA market than Vazquez and Granderson. That scenerio is worth the risk and worth waiting for, especially when you consider the present is as likely to be as good with the FA's added.
Time, as always, will tell. Sheets signed for 10M, roughly what the Yankees are paying for Vazquez. their track record in terms of ERA have been similar, except one has pitched 30+ start for almost 10 strait season and the other hasn't had two consective healthy season in 5 years and didn't pitch at all last year.
Jackson's chances of being ready THIS year, is very slim. if you diss Granderson but likes Byrd then I question your talent judgement. seeing that Byrd's OPS outside of Arlington in the last 3 year is .740/.772/..715 . oh and he's 3 years older than Granderson and the Cubs signed him for 3/15 . so your advocating playing youth but purpose we go after someone who is now on the hook for age 32-34 (and NOT an elite player by any stretch of the imagination.) oh right he's UZR also went from 15 to -9 in 08-09, so by your definition he's in ULTRA STEEP decline.
It is almost guarenteed that Byrd / Sheets will not come close to Granderson / Vazquez in 2010 barring disastorous injuries to the later. they also aren't cheaper. (so the Damon logic doesn't hold. since Byrd + Sheets alone = Granderson + Vazquez for 2010. ) seeing that even now on paper the Yankees are just a little bit better than the Red Sox, I'm sure you'll be thrilled if we keep the kids who may or may not pan out and almost surely won't help in that season for a season like 2008.
Yankee Tripper
01-27-10, 11:00 AM
rollingwave, you may be my new favorite poster
what's up doc?
01-27-10, 06:01 PM
Nick Swisher INNINGS in CF before 2009
04: 1
05: 0
06: 2
07: 481 (-8.8 UZR150)
08: 535 ( -10.9 UZR 150)
1)I'm seeing a guy who wasn't a CF to begin with, was put in there in 07 because the A's other CF's (which included Mark Kotsay and a injured then traded Milton Bradly plus a bunch of no names) were terrible and he's the best of 3 bad options. Then the White Sox foolishly did not realize this and decided that it was a good idea to start him there full time 08 and took a few months before they realize they're retarded. your spinning it as if he was a good CF then steadily declined into a old hobbled corner.
2)No one is talking about Nick Swisher and Curtis Granderson as the "core" although they would be core playeres on many lesser teams. we are discussing them because you brought up that they're "declining players" . while you spilled out yourself that true elite players "Extend their prime" unless you feel that Jeter and A-rod aren't truly elite players (in which case the truly elite player in the history of baseball would include about 20 players or less) . and then went on to blab about the lesser supporting cast players .
3)Do you even read your own post and see the highly self contracdictory comments one after another? you went on and on about Arody and Ajax then blubed that they're "marginal prospects"
4)yes, like that Roger Clemens fellow, such a support cast guy that isn't a top name!
http://www.baseballprojection.com/war/top500p.htm
Oh yeah, and it's not like they traded for a guy that won the Cy young two years before joining the Yankees like David Cone. or another guy that finished 2nd in the Cy votings once before joining and once with the Yankees. you know, like that Jimmy Key guy.
And yup, they never traded for aging guys on the decline for a lot of good prospects
5)The Yankees traded and signed both big names AND supporting cast in the 90s. to say otherwise is being blind or highly unsubjective.
Also, Paul O'Neil drove in 100 + runs 6 times and had a OPS + above 130 5 times while with the Yankees . if those are supporting cast #, then Barry Bonds is just your everyday garden variety HOF slugger.
6)is it really? there's a balance to everything, if you have Albert Pujols at 10M a year . do you trade him for the farm system of any random team? even the best once? prospects today are not as cheap as your making it sound, top IFAs routinely sign for 1M or 2M or more. and there's no guarentee they always pan out. the biggest catch on the IFA in the year that the Yankees signed Montero was Angels Villaona, who was arrested last year in the DR .... for murder.
You take your chances, there is no clearly right or wrong answers for anything, the Red Sox won a championship in 07 thx to the Josh Beckett trade, they also traded away a guy who now seems like a highly likely HOF player. (As likely as a guy can be at age 25 anyway)
7)Sheets signed for 10M, roughly what the Yankees are paying for Vazquez. their track record in terms of ERA have been similar, except one has pitched 30+ start for almost 10 strait season and the other hasn't had two consective healthy season in 5 years and didn't pitch at all last year.
8)Jackson's chances of being ready THIS year, is very slim. if you diss Granderson but likes Byrd then I question your talent judgement. seeing that Byrd's OPS outside of Arlington in the last 3 year is .740/.772/..715 . oh and he's 3 years older than Granderson and the Cubs signed him for 3/15 . so your advocating playing youth but purpose we go after someone who is now on the hook for age 32-34 (and NOT an elite player by any stretch of the imagination.) oh right he's UZR also went from 15 to -9 in 08-09, so by your definition he's in ULTRA STEEP decline.
9)It is almost guarenteed that Byrd / Sheets will not come close to Granderson / Vazquez in 2010 barring disastorous injuries to the later. they also aren't cheaper. (so the Damon logic doesn't hold. since Byrd + Sheets alone = Granderson + Vazquez for 2010. ) seeing that even now on paper the Yankees are just a little bit better than the Red Sox, I'm sure you'll be thrilled if we keep the kids who may or may not pan out and almost surely won't help in that season for a season like 2008.
1) Who the f&#$ said Swishers was hobbled. I said a hitter who's best asset is his OBP, has a low BA, with a high range on-the-scale, moderate power numbers, is not driving the ball enough based on latter two facts to not hurt his value in RF whe moved off of CF in '08. Yes, the White Sox were wrong, the Yankee's got a bargin. I loved the move. Just not a core player for a contender and I feel his '08 year was the start of his decline years, '09 was the blip in the screen. 2010 will be a telling year in that regard. Obviously, my opinion-- we shall see.
2) AGAIN, I stated that the Yankee's core was aging. To refute this fact someone (not worth naming) used Swish. and Grand. as examples to the contrary. So, either he thought of them as core talents or he took the same "Learning to Read for Dummies" and "Learning to Debate for Dummies" courses you did. Maybe you'll understand this: My tarzan/apeman immitation here for full effect "I say first get 'em elite players, because they play real good and for longer time, then need 'em lesser, good guy, role players, because can not have 'em only elite players on team, but together can make 'em good team."
3) I read my own posts, wish you had the capacity. Clearly using sarcasm, I referred to Jack. and Viz. as marginal prospects in referrence to this boards propaganda level biases. Not a bad word was uttered about either until they were traded. Only then did all the flaws become issues. Had I included the same critisms about them while they were still Yankees it would have been meet with predictable denial.
4) Roger Clemens was indeed amoung the "best-in-the-biz" type preformers when traded here. Therefore I was all for it then. And would support it now. I see a distinction between Clemens and Vazquez. Also, at the time the Yankees had a young core and a highly rated farm system, so they could easily absorb the loss. And that deal was a steal for the Yankees as there were no players with Vizcaino's ceiling involved. Cone also > than Vazquez.
And no, they never did trade good, young prospects for aging players, THEY KEPT THEM-- Jeter, Rivera, Posada, Williams, Pettitte, ect. They knew their system back then and traded prospects that never panned out, yet managed to keep the Jeters and the Posadas. Dumb luck, right? And the highly rated young 2b Soriano included for the 28 y.o. ARod was a good use of the system-- justifiable.
5) Yeah, they did trade for a big name, it just didn't cost them future core members despite having a deep system. Presently, a thin system is getting thinner by trading better prospects for lesser talent (LOOK >>>) IMO. During those dynasty years the acquisitions were by-and-large the complimentary parts, the home-grown young talent were the stars, Clemens being the exception to the rule. When that still present core is done, this system simply won't make that possible. And all the acquisitions big and small led to domination with a payroll nowhere near as bloated as this one. I said build a dominant, sustainable development system that only the Yankees are capable of and they could win big by only filling in with role players. They did MOSTLY that during their dynasty years. Clemens IS THE exception, Cone was considered on the decline when the Yankees got him. The much beloved O'Neill was the ultimate complimentary piece on a great team. Most of the core players on those teams are future HOF'ers. O'Neill falls short of that. Was not among the top 5 at his position, Bonds was always the best at his. Dopey pairing anyway you look at it.
6) This system would be horse s&#% right now without Montero, who was a big name, highly touted, IFA signing. And it is a very different IFA system than only a few years ago. Scouting is becoming more advanced down there, age verification is mandatory and they are beginning to play in real competition. The percentage of busts is coming down closer to drafted talent levels all the time. This fact, along with the small market teams becoming factors means the Yankee's won't have it as easy anymore-- however, it is still the single biggest area to exploit the system. The Yankee's response, sadly, has largely been to take their ball home. And with the hieghtened interest in LA, the sound of crickets is heard from the Yankee's interest in the pacific rim. And I don't expect an epidemic of murder cases plaguing the IFA system. But, maybe that can be used as an excuse here for having small market teams out spend us in the IFA market. By balance, you must mean a Yankee IFA budget closer to the MLB average.
7) Sheet's price is shocking, especially when considering his resent workout. So as any good GM needs to have a plan B, mine is innings eating Jon Garland and the high ceiling Bedard being sign. Will cost a little more but, if the farm system really meant as much as they say, they would extend themselves a little and keep future, young gun Vizcaino and get better present results. Garland as your inning eating no. 4, for the regular season. Eric Bedard as a late season shot-in-the-arm. I'll take that over Vazquez any day. And I say Vazquez will stink this year. Mark it down.
8) ONCE MORE, I like Byrd because I get to keep Jackson, as I'm planning on being a fan beyond this year. Most fans, judging by this sight are now in line with the Yankee's way of thinking, living like tomorrow will never come. It's as if George S. wrote his version of "Money Ball" and Cashman and the rest of you are sucking it all up-- problem is the George influenced years never did work out well in the long run. And I SAID BYRD IN CF AND DAMON IN LF WILL BE BETTER PRODUCTION THAN GRANDERSON IN CF AND GARDNER IN LF. AND MY WAY I STILL GOT JACKSON.
You really want to win big now and even bigger in the future-- sign both Byrd for 3 years (1 1/2 as a starter and 1 1/2 as a 4th OF allowing for a smooth transition for Action Jackson) and Reed Johnson to a 1 year (check out their righty/lefty splits, despite hitting from the same side.) Then sign Jermaine Dye for LF. Better production and my future isn't adversely effected-- costs a little more but well worth it.
9) AGAIN I said Sheets (who became cost prohibitive and unlike Cashman's costly fixations, I would move on) and Bedard, at the time . And Byrd and Damon. Although, I will say Vazquez and Granderson are due to dissappoint. So even with your twistings I still may come out ahead. We will see.
Sure it would cost more, but only in dollars and not cost a potential big chunk of your future. The true cost would be a big longterm savings if either Jackson or Vizcaino spent their cost controlled years here. That's always a gamble. It's also the type of gamble I stongly advocate. Looking at this system, there won't be much payroll relief on the way. Agreed, Red Sox are not far behind and yet their payroll is significantly lower. Would be proof to some that there is a better way.
Either keep the payroll at record levels or begin the decline-- those are some big costs as well.
I'm A Wenner!
01-27-10, 06:24 PM
Granderson/Gardner will outperform Byrd/Damon. They'll be equal or better on offense and probably 20-30 runs better on defense.
what's up doc?
01-27-10, 06:33 PM
rollingwave, you may be my new favorite poster
:o Make sure you keep it that way and not pull the bad memory routine once he's proven to be dead wrong.
what's up doc?
01-27-10, 06:38 PM
Granderson/Gardner will outperform Byrd/Damon. They'll be equal or better on offense and probably 20-30 runs better on defense.
Saying it again doesn't make it any less absurd-- just adds another layer to it.
what's up doc?
01-27-10, 10:24 PM
K. Law:
"25. New York Yankees
Lost picks and trades depleted the system; they traded two guys currently in the top 100. After Jesus Montero, the next impact guys are probably Slade Heathcott and Gary Sanchez, with three pro games combined to date, while their highest-ceiling arm, Andrew Brackman, struggled with command in his first full year back from Tommy John surgery.<!-- / message --><!-- Sig Was Here -->"
Just further proof of the media out to get the Yankees. First BA and now this guy. They don't care about their professional reputations, they just care about making the Yankees prospect look bad.
How's that sound? About the same as the rest of the posters?
I thought so.
yankee82093
01-27-10, 10:33 PM
this thread is pretty horrendous.
teknetic
01-27-10, 11:20 PM
K. Law:
"25. New York Yankees
Lost picks and trades depleted the system; they traded two guys currently in the top 100. After Jesus Montero, the next impact guys are probably Slade Heathcott and Gary Sanchez, with three pro games combined to date, while their highest-ceiling arm, Andrew Brackman, struggled with command in his first full year back from Tommy John surgery.<!-- / message --><!-- Sig Was Here -->"
Just further proof of the media out to get the Yankees. First BA and now this guy. They don't care about their professional reputations, they just care about making the Yankees prospect look bad.
How's that sound? About the same as the rest of the posters?
I thought so.
He's talking to himself now. Really awesome stuff.
I'm A Wenner!
01-28-10, 12:04 AM
Saying it again doesn't make it any less absurd-- just adds another layer to it.
Which part of my factually correct statement do you take issue with?
CasanovaWong
01-28-10, 12:24 AM
Keith Law also had the Red Sox ranked 2nd and the Mets 11th. That list is garbage too. Same with the MLB.com list. The very fact that Arodys Vizcaino is now more highly regarded after being traded is proof these mainstream prospect rankings are crap.
Here's ESPN minors guru Jim Callis on AViz:
Mickey (Tempe, AZ)
How did Arodys Vizcaino seem to become a better prospect after he was traded from the Yankees to the Braves?
Jim Callis (2:31 PM)
I think he just got more time in the spotlight after getting included in the trade. Yankees prospects aren't underhyped.
Contradiction much? Arodys was an afterthought until he was put in the national spotlight. Then he became hyped up and suddenly a top prospect BUT Yankees prospects aren't underhyped. Those guys are paid by ESPN to slurp America's favorite, small market underdog. Don't take their crap seriously.
ArodMVP217
01-28-10, 01:42 AM
I was taught not to! I just expected more from little Buster
Saxmania
01-28-10, 06:53 AM
ZIPS projects Granderson to a 111 OPS+ next year, Damon to a 110, Byrd to a 101 (pretty poor in the outfield), and Gardner to an 81.
For Gardner, of course, you need to add in quite a bit of base-stealing, and both Granderson and Gardner are better defensively than Byrd and Damon. Plus, they can be locked up long-term, and will probably end up cheaper. Gardner will improve; Granderson might; Damon and Byrd won't.
Matsui gets a 119 and Johnson a 128, by the way. Plus, again, Johnson can play 1B and is a lot younger. Winn wasn't rated (but the owner admits that he should have been); I'm guessing around an 80.
Be seeing you,
Saxmania
DWells4prez
01-28-10, 09:42 AM
The mere fact that he thinks signing Jon Garland as a plan B is even a good idea is outlandish. If you want innings, just throw Mitre out there, I'm sure he can do just as well as Garland. ROFLMAO
I mean like we keep Vizcaino who might be able to help us in 4 years and be another SP, oh my god, what are we doing yankee fans? Do you guys not see it? We have no young players, were goign to be bad forever, oh my god. EF YOU BRIAN CHASHDSMAN OR WHATEVER YOUR NAME IS YOU DISPICABLE MAN YOU
teknetic
01-28-10, 08:22 PM
Bedard AND Sheets, plus Vizcaino > Vazquez
Mariners head trainer Rick Griffin hinted Thursday that free agent Erik Bedard might not be ready to pitch for another three-to-five months.
Bedard underwent exploratory surgery on his left shoulder in August that revealed a torn labrum and inflamed bursa. According to Griffin, he was given a 10-to-12 month recovery timeline and it has only been seven. In other words, he might be ready by late April, but chances are he'll be out until May. No wonder he's drawn such little interest on the open market this winter.
..and I'm pretty sure that doesn't include rehab time.
primetime714
01-29-10, 10:48 AM
The mere fact that he thinks signing Jon Garland as a plan B is even a good idea is outlandish. If you want innings, just throw Mitre out there, I'm sure he can do just as well as Garland. ROFLMAO
I mean like we keep Vizcaino who might be able to help us in 4 years and be another SP, oh my god, what are we doing yankee fans? Do you guys not see it? We have no young players, were goign to be bad forever, oh my god. EF YOU BRIAN CHASHDSMAN OR WHATEVER YOUR NAME IS YOU DISPICABLE MAN YOU
Garland is not a bad pitcher. He's actually a great back of the rotation innings eater. He won't ever dominate, but he consistently goes out there and puts up quality starts. And he's pitched most of his career in the AL.
Now he's nowhere near the pitcher that Vazquez is, but he's a million times better than Mitre.
Yankee Tripper
01-29-10, 11:39 AM
Garland is not a bad pitcher. He's actually a great back of the rotation innings eater. He won't ever dominate, but he consistently goes out there and puts up quality starts. And he's pitched most of his career in the AL.
Now he's nowhere near the pitcher that Vazquez is, but he's a million times better than Mitre.Garland has had declining peripherals for a few years now. He's an OK innings eater as you mention but for $5M I think the Yanks can spend that money better.
I'm sure he'll put up nice numbers in PETCO assuming the Padre OF defense is at least adaquate. But personally I see Garland as 5ish ERA picther on a prospective basis. We'll see.
Mitre I think is mostly useless so I can't really argue much with you on that one.
yankee82093
01-29-10, 12:49 PM
I'm not so sure what makes garland "a million times" better than Mitre. Yea, he's better, the gaps just really not that big. He has more of track record, but in terms of performance and true talent level, he's not exactly in a whole other world than Mitre. If we let mitre start 35 games I'm pretty sure he could do 180 innings and a high 4's era.
primetime714
01-29-10, 01:23 PM
I'm not so sure what makes garland "a million times" better than Mitre. Yea, he's better, the gaps just really not that big. He has more of track record, but in terms of performance and true talent level, he's not exactly in a whole other world than Mitre. If we let mitre start 35 games I'm pretty sure he could do 180 innings and a high 4's era.
What reason do you have to believe that? The guy is in his late 20's and has a career ERA of 5.56 with most of that being in the NL. In 07 he may have put up a 4.65 ERA as a starter, but he did that in the NL east and did that while giving up 11 hits per 9 with about 1.5 WHIP. He's never been a good pitcher, so even if he fully regains his pre-injury form you're still looking at a pretty bad pitcher and its not like he's suddenly going to magically become a good pitcher since he never was any good.
Garland is clearly a better pitcher because the guy consistently pitches about 200 innings every year (since he was 22). He wins minimum of 10 games every year. He has an ERA in the mid 4's and gives you quality start in about 2/3 games. This past year he had 23 quality starts in 33 games. With the Yankees offense he'd probably win about 15 games.
Now let me be clear I'm not suggesting that we should've signed Garland as Vazquez is clearly better, but to laugh off the idea and claim that Sergio Mitre is better than one of the more consistent pitchers in baseball is simply absurd.
primetime714
01-29-10, 01:26 PM
Garland has had declining peripherals for a few years now. He's an OK innings eater as you mention but for $5M I think the Yanks can spend that money better.
I'm sure he'll put up nice numbers in PETCO assuming the Padre OF defense is at least adaquate. But personally I see Garland as 5ish ERA picther on a prospective basis. We'll see.
Mitre I think is mostly useless so I can't really argue much with you on that one.
I agree. I think he'll be closer to a 4.00 ERA in the NL West and PETCO, but yea in the AL East he'd probably be somewhere near or around 5. Nothing special, but a decent pitcher. Unlike Mitre who I completely agree is not good at all.
DWells4prez
01-29-10, 03:20 PM
Sorry, I don't know why were arguing the fact of mitre and garland. I simply used the analogy to show that I wager them both to be worse then league average.
what's up doc?
01-30-10, 01:11 PM
"Law's rankings:
Montero - 10
Banuelos - 96
Former Yankees:
Vizcaino - 43
Tabata - 57
Jackson - 70"
From five down to two! And why, I ask? Just why? What did we get in return?
*Didn't need Nady and a superior alternative to the over-the-hill Marte was signing Affelt AND KEEPING TABATA.
*As for Vizcaino and Jackson, all the Yankees will have to show for them in two years is an aging Granderson. Vazquez' pitching will be so mediocre there is no gaurantee the Yankee risk arbitation, just wait and see.
That little suck up, nerd is a butcher disguised in a Brooks Brothers suit.
Yeah, I said it and I'm not sorry. Cut me, do I not bleed?
<!-- / message --><!-- Sig Was Here -->
what's up doc?
01-30-10, 01:38 PM
"We have a lot of kids with huge upsides in the low minors. But that's a long way away. The ratings will go up next year."
This quote coming from one of the boards biggest eternal optimists. After a disappointing July 2nd and draft, by any reasonable standards, the implied reason was the Chapman carrot-on-a-stick. Once that fizzled out, there was the report of a group of IFA's who have signed after October yet, mysteriously had not yet been made public. Now comes the sunny prognosis of where the system is headed. If you can't see a big let up both in rhetoric and action towards player development over the last two years, following a brief flurtation period, your just refusing to see it as it really is.
Fact is, there are NOT a lot of kids with huge upsides in the low minors when compared to other clubs and after Montero graduates to the bigs, the system will be rated even lower.
As for the usual low percentage that do make it to the upper levels with their status intact, they will simply be used up in more shortsighted trades to shore up the holes that are sure to sprout up thanks to the most unimaganative, unrefined, unsophisticated, and undeserving GM is baseball.
what's up doc?
01-30-10, 01:54 PM
Then again, he did sign Randy Winn. I'm pinching myself, I hope I'm not dreaming.
CallOfTheCrow
01-30-10, 02:01 PM
"Law's rankings:
Montero - 10
Banuelos - 96
Former Yankees:
Vizcaino - 43
Tabata - 57
Jackson - 70"
From five down to two! And why, I ask? Just why? What did we get in return?
*Didn't need Nady and a superior alternative to the over-the-hill Marte was signing Affelt AND KEEPING TABATA.
*As for Vizcaino and Jackson, all the Yankees will have to show for them in two years is an aging Granderson. Vazquez' pitching will be so mediocre there is no gaurantee the Yankee risk arbitation, just wait and see.
That little suck up, nerd is a butcher disguised in a Brooks Brothers suit.
Yeah, I said it and I'm not sorry. Cut me, do I not bleed?
<!-- / message --><!-- Sig Was Here -->
After seeing where he ranked the Mets, you seriously want to quote Keith Law?
Saxmania
01-30-10, 02:04 PM
As for the usual low percentage that do make it to the upper levels with their status intact, they will simply be used up in more shortsighted trades to shore up the holes that are sure to sprout up thanks to the most unimaganative, unrefined, unsophisticated, and undeserving GM is baseball.
Yep. Just like Cano, Hughes, and Chamberlain were. Oh, wait . . .
EDIT - and who do you think that Cashman is sucking up to? If your answer ends with the name 'Steinbrenner' then, well, that's not that far away from being his job . . .
Be seeing you,
Saxmania
what's up doc?
01-30-10, 02:30 PM
After seeing where he ranked the Mets, you seriously want to quote Keith Law?
The Kieth Law bias thing is just plain dumb. Come on now, it's his job. He wants to be right on his evaluations and is not going to purposefully underrate/overrate talent based on what club they play for and risk underminding his reputation.
But, I use him as an outside perspective. Here's mine.......................................
In the very near future the Yankees could have had:
in RF-- Tabata, a above average defensive right fielder with an offense edging close to a prime aged IRod's numbers.
in CF-- Jackson, who has stands an excellent chance of being the next Devon White, with possibility of better offensive numbers. And back in his day, for 5 years, Devon White was 1/3 of what was widely believed to be the best OF in baseball.
in P-- Vizcaino, I see a fast mover, provided no major injury. As a comparable upside, go ahead and laugh, I see a poor man's Doc Gooden (the young years.)
Have the patience of keeping this intact and adding it to a young Frank Thomas-like monster masher and a savy beyond his years lefty in Man Ban, who has enough stuff to make the crafty label just part of the equation and you would of had my juices flowing. Sure it's no gaurantee, but if it comes even close, the Yankees would have budget relief to add some tantalizing pieces through free agency.
And, the sad truth is, I have read nothing hear to convince me that the FA market didn't offer enough talent to shore up present needs and retain a chance at a far better future. And the worse part of all, had they simply kept up the interest and commitment to player development that they showed in the mid-00's, they would have almost as many, just like this group, qeued up right behind them. I salavate at the thought of Montero gaining a foot-hold in the major league just as Sano was moving up the system-- fast.
Why this point of view delagates me to loose canon poster on this board says more about yourselves than it does about me.
Saxmania
01-30-10, 02:36 PM
Or, let's look at this another way. Who are the significant prospects traded away by Cashman over the last decade, and what have they contributed in the majors (not what ranking they have on a prospects list; that doesn't win anyone anything):
Ted Lilly: Useful major league pitcher. Career ERA+ of 107. Given who he was traded for, it would be good to have him back, though he'd be a 4th/5th starter on this team.
Juan Rivera: Below-average corner outfielder with a career OPS+ of 107. Again, might have had his uses, but was never going to be part of a new 'core'.
Dioner Navarro: I liked him. Has a career OPS+ of 78. Not all that special, it turned out.
Brandon Claussen: Out of baseball in 2006, after 58 starts at an ERA+ of 87. Not exciting.
Brad Halsey: Out of baseball in 2006, with 42 starts at a career ETA+ of 92. Slightly more useful, but no more than 5th starter, and never a part of a long-term plan. Value nearly none.
D'Angelo Jiminez: Out of baseball in 2007, with a career OPS+ of 92. Not bad for a 2nd baseman, but not good defensively, and he was unlucky with injuries. Except for the gap between Soriano and Cano, New York hardly missed him.
Marcus Thames: Still in baseball with a 104 career OPS+; 4th outfielder stuff. a less-good Granderson, and you hate Granderson.
Randy Choate: Left baseball in 2007 with a career 103 ERA+. Pretty awful for a LOOGY.
Randy Keisler: Career ERA+ of 66. Moving along.
Nick Johnson: Very good hitter; we just got him back. You don't like him, so . . .
Who else do you want to talk about? Erick Almonte? Brandon Knight? Jorge DePaula? Tyler Clippard? I've left out players above 26 when traded, as I don't see how they can be considered prospects.
Seriously, where is this long line of budding All-Stars that Cashman has banished? If Cashman is a 'butcher', then I think you have to conclude that most of his victims took the form of mercy killings. You keep complaining about Vizcaino and Tabata and Jackson, but they haven't turned into anything at the major league level yet. You assume they will, but past history (see above) suggests that Cashman is very good at trading away prospects who don't become much.
Or, put another way: Cashman kept Wang, Chamberlain, Hughes, and Cano over the last 10 years. Those four, put together, have already produced more value than all the prospects I listed above put together who were traded away over the last decade, and almost certainly all the ones I didn't, too. Probably more than they'll ever produce, actually.
I was against trading away some of the names above. Navarro, Claussen, Johnson. While they may not always have brought back great things, they also seldom turned into much. You're just making stuff up at this point. Who are all these long-lost treasures you pine for?
Be seeing you,
Saxmania
CallOfTheCrow
01-30-10, 02:37 PM
I didn't use the word "bias", champ. You did.
People who follow not only Yankees prospects, but also other teams prospects, should know that how ridiculous his top 100 prospects list is.
what's up doc?
01-30-10, 02:58 PM
Yep. Just like Cano, Hughes, and Chamberlain were. Oh, wait . . .
EDIT - and who do you think that Cashman is sucking up to? If your answer ends with the name 'Steinbrenner' then, well, that's not that far away from being his job . . .
Be seeing you,
Saxmania
Yes, of course, Steinbrenner, as in George, more recently Hank, and now Hal. He's had his nose up their butt holes ever since he became an intern. There have been GM's who stuck to their principles when up against George's unfocused, impulsive demands-- Michaels and Watson. Cashman can't hold a candle to those two professionally. And their strong back bones are in sharp contrast to the doctile Cashman. When Hank wanted to build the system, he obediently complied. Stated it was the better way to go. Along came the influence of the all-about-business Hal and his concerns with luxury suite sales. It's Hal who prompted him to make the Tabata trade, read both mens quotes at the time. And the same goes for the FA binge of last year.
Sure, a WS could not have been bought without it. But, it did not have to cause the abrupt turn about in player development. No luxery tax for signing IFA's and over-slot signings in this still wide open MLB system. As far as the mounting cost of both the FA slurge of '09 and a continued large investment in the ametuer market-- it would have produced a cost savings in a larger focused, fiscal horizon. And it stood a very good chance of producing a monumental level of succes on the field.
The Steinnbrenners impatience stood in the way. That and a jelly fish for a GM.
Saxmania
01-30-10, 03:03 PM
The Steinnbrenners impatience stood in the way. That and a jelly fish for a GM.
Then your blame belongs with the Steinbrenners, not the guy they hired to run their property the way they wanted it run!. Honestly, this isn't a hard concept to grasp. An employee owes his employer his honest opinion and the ability to make a case for it; he does not owe his employer to ignore his orders unless the owner is actually mentally ill or something.
Don't go there.
You have a surreal notion of what Cashman's job actually is. He's employed by the Steinbrenners to run their baseball team in the way that they want it run. You, nor I, have no idea how much Cashman stands up to them or not in private. You, nor I, have no idea how hard he did or didn't fight to protect Tabata, or trade him, or blow $500m on a long-term contract for Enrique Wilson. I suppose Cashman could have quit in protest. Then again, the fact that he's just delivered a World Series win suggests to me that his abilities are still intact.
You're just making things up.
Be seeing you,
Saxmania
what's up doc?
01-30-10, 03:15 PM
Or, let's look at this another way. Who are the significant prospects traded away by Cashman over the last decade, and what have they contributed in the majors (not what ranking they have on a prospects list; that doesn't win anyone anything):
Ted Lilly: Useful major league pitcher. Career ERA+ of 107. Given who he was traded for, it would be good to have him back, though he'd be a 4th/5th starter on this team.
Juan Rivera: Below-average corner outfielder with a career OPS+ of 107. Again, might have had his uses, but was never going to be part of a new 'core'.
Dioner Navarro: I liked him. Has a career OPS+ of 78. Not all that special, it turned out.
Brandon Claussen: Out of baseball in 2006, after 58 starts at an ERA+ of 87. Not exciting.
Brad Halsey: Out of baseball in 2006, with 42 starts at a career ETA+ of 92. Slightly more useful, but no more than 5th starter, and never a part of a long-term plan. Value nearly none.
D'Angelo Jiminez: Out of baseball in 2007, with a career OPS+ of 92. Not bad for a 2nd baseman, but not good defensively, and he was unlucky with injuries. Except for the gap between Soriano and Cano, New York hardly missed him.
Marcus Thames: Still in baseball with a 104 career OPS+; 4th outfielder stuff. a less-good Granderson, and you hate Granderson.
Randy Choate: Left baseball in 2007 with a career 103 ERA+. Pretty awful for a LOOGY.
Randy Keisler: Career ERA+ of 66. Moving along.
Nick Johnson: Very good hitter; we just got him back. You don't like him, so . . .
Who else do you want to talk about? Erick Almonte? Brandon Knight? Jorge DePaula? Tyler Clippard? I've left out players above 26 when traded, as I don't see how they can be considered prospects.
Seriously, where is this long line of budding All-Stars that Cashman has banished? If Cashman is a 'butcher', then I think you have to conclude that most of his victims took the form of mercy killings. You keep complaining about Vizcaino and Tabata and Jackson, but they haven't turned into anything at the major league level yet. You assume they will, but past history (see above) suggests that Cashman is very good at trading away prospects who don't become much.
Or, put another way: Cashman kept Wang, Chamberlain, Hughes, and Cano over the last 10 years. Those four, put together, have already produced more value than all the prospects I listed above put together who were traded away over the last decade, and almost certainly all the ones I didn't, too. Probably more than they'll ever produce, actually.
I was against trading away some of the names above. Navarro, Claussen, Johnson. While they may not always have brought back great things, they also seldom turned into much. You're just making stuff up at this point. Who are all these long-lost treasures you pine for?
Be seeing you,
Saxmania
I would have pined over Wang (past tense,) Cano, Chamberlain, and Hughes. Points to a system that was on the mend in recent years. Half from that group came from that blimp of the mid-00's (Edit: thanks to sax's pointing it out,) when the Yankees had increased there interest in the farm.
Jiminez' car accident makes his inclusion misleading. Johnson and Navarro are the only other two that stand out as, once-upon-a-time, being high upside prospects. Claussen and Lilly were guys with middling ceilings but, veiwed with good chances of reaching them.
And I liked getting Johnson back and wouldn't mind Navarro right about now.
That list covers a large window in time. Points more to the ravages caused largely from neglect. I say the group I mentioned is better. Hope your around when one of us is proven wrong.
what's up doc?
01-30-10, 03:21 PM
I didn't use the word "bias", champ. You did.
No, you didn't. But many have. And it really is stupid.
Saxmania
01-30-10, 03:25 PM
I would have pined over Wang (past tense,) Cano, Chamberlain, and Hughes.
Well, all but one are still there, and the one that isn't left because of massive injury and form problems, not because Cashman traded him for the latest shiny All-Star. So you agree that Cashman's done a great job of holding onto the most valuable prospects of the last decade, and dumping the refuse?
Points to a system that was on the mend in recent years. Half from that group came from that blimp of the mid-90's, when the Yankees had increased there interest in the farm.
Well, this couldn't BE more wrong! Wang was signed in 2000. when we're told the Yankees were selling out their prospects to fund more World Series. Cano was signed in 2001. Nothing in the 90s about that.
Jiminez' car accident makes his inclusion misleading. Johnson and Navarro are the only other two that stand out as, once-upon-a-time, being high upside prospects. Claussen and Lilly were guys with middling ceilings but, veiwed with good chances of reaching them.
And I liked getting Johnson back and wouldn't mind Navarro right about now.
Yankees sold high, and were right to, that's what I'm hearing here. Navarro might be better than Cervelli, but might be worse, and has already reached his ceiling, and is more expensive. Trading away a backup catcher for the Yankees is hardly the most heinous crime; how many World Series did that cost us?
So Johnson and Lilly delivered some value, and Navarro wavered between average-quality starting catcher and good backup. Cashman The Butcher Of The Bronx traded away one very good but injury-prone 1st baseman, a 4th starter, and a backup catcher. Yes, he's veritably another Stalin.
That list covers a large window in time. Points more to the ravages caused largely from neglect. I say the group I mentioned as better. Hope your around when one of us is proven wrong.
So Cashman traded away all the many, great, young, high-ceiling prospects since the mid-90s, but there weren't any apart from Johnson, which proves how neglected the farm system was? Riiiiiight.
I've been here for more than 8 years. Read into that whatever you want.
Be seeing you,
Saxmania
what's up doc?
01-30-10, 03:37 PM
Then your blame belongs with the Steinbrenners, not the guy they hired to run their property the way they wanted it run!. Honestly, this isn't a hard concept to grasp. An employee owes his employer his honest opinion and the ability to make a case for it; he does not owe his employer to ignore his orders unless the owner is actually mentally ill or something.
Don't go there.
You have a surreal notion of what Cashman's job actually is. He's employed by the Steinbrenners to run their baseball team in the way that they want it run. You, nor I, have no idea how much Cashman stands up to them or not in private. You, nor I, have no idea how hard he did or didn't fight to protect Tabata, or trade him, or blow $500m on a long-term contract for Enrique Wilson. I suppose Cashman could have quit in protest. Then again, the fact that he's just delivered a World Series win suggests to me that his abilities are still intact.
You're just making things up.
Be seeing you,
Saxmania
It didn't take any ability, just an open check book. And as I already pointed to men of talent and integrity, in Michaels and Watson, who consistently butted heads with George Steinbrenner on issues important to them. What's important to Cashman-- keeping his job.......PERIOD. Chances his stated beliefs as often as George twitches.
That's not the best man (and I use that term loosely) for the job.
CallOfTheCrow
01-30-10, 03:42 PM
No, you didn't. But many have. And it really is stupid.
Then why act like I did say that?
Since you seemingly put a lot of stock into what Law says, would you take the Mets system over the Yankees?
what's up doc?
01-30-10, 03:47 PM
"Well, this couldn't BE more wrong! Wang was signed in 2000. when we're told the Yankees were selling out their prospects to fund more World Series. Cano was signed in 2001. Nothing in the 90s about that."
I stand corrected, it was a typo, I meant to refer to the period in the mid-'00's, with the recommitment to the farm system that produced half the names you mentioned. Obviously, Joba and Hughes didn't get drafted before they were teenagers.:-hide-:
Saxmania
01-30-10, 04:02 PM
It didn't take any ability, just an open check book. And as I already pointed to men of talent and integrity, in Michaels and Watson, who consistently butted heads with George Steinbrenner on issues important to them. What's important to Cashman-- keeping his job.......PERIOD. Chances his stated beliefs as often as George twitches.
That's not the best man (and I use that term loosely) for the job.
You have no idea whether Cashman did this or not, unless you're privy to an awful lot of senior Yankee meetings. In which case, this is an odd hobby you have. You're just making assumptions because they fit your pre-conceptions, trying to validate a point which no-one can ever demonstrate one way or the other.
So, again: you're making things up. And the Yankees have won 2 World Series and 8 division titles in the last 10 years, and have one of the best prospects in all of baseball. Clearly, Cashman is doing something right.
Be seeing you,
Saxmania
yarosh25
01-30-10, 04:08 PM
what's up doc = chicken little. At least your posts before used some factual thought on your part, but the last two pages here became pure slander, unsubstantiated hatred for Cashman. Vizcaino could be the next Pedro Martinez, but NOT next year. Maybe in 4-5 years. Yankees have a 200 mil payroll and are built to win now, not in 4 years. IF and that's a big IF, Vizcaino is supposed to become a cost-controlled ace. Or when Jackson will become the player Granderson is now.
what's up doc?
01-30-10, 04:10 PM
Then why act like I did say that?
Since you seemingly put a lot of stock into what Law says, would you take the Mets system over the Yankees?
Didn't mean to, simply implied that the boards generally accepted dismissal of Law and everyone else who rates the Yankees system lower than what they would like, based on a fan bias that over-rides their professional integrity is stupid. Again, didn't mean that you were one of them, I meant to state that I was not in that group.
No, I wouldn't take the Mets system over the Yankees ONLY because of what I view as the very special upside of Montero. Only 5-10 players in all of the minors with his impact potential, in my mind.
Most of these guys rate systems based on the quantity of high and mid rated prospects with an emphasis on how high in the system they are. A Heathcott has "A" type potential but, you won't see Sickles give him that designation at this point. The Mets do have an overall better crop of prospects in the upper level (although not nearly enough to superseed Montero, using my system that one potentially historic, elite player alone can make a system.) But, based on their (Law, Sickles, BA, and even BP) criteria, I see no problem with Law rating the Mets higher. I do, however, have a problem with how quickly their respective standings have shifted.
CallOfTheCrow
01-30-10, 04:16 PM
The Mets at 15 & the Yankees at 25 though? That's a joke, a really bad joke at that.
How about when he glorifies Boston for stock piling low level prospects yet cuts the Yankees down for doing the same thing? He's a mountain of hypocrisy & his word is nothing that should be taken as gospel. You can call him bias, lazy, or just a moron...none of which would be totally inaccurate.
THEBOSS84
01-30-10, 04:17 PM
I can't believe this clown has an 8 page thread dedicated to him.
JavyVazquezIsSick
01-30-10, 04:22 PM
Seriously, people just need to ignore him.
what's up doc?
01-30-10, 05:09 PM
You have no idea whether Cashman did this or not, unless you're privy to an awful lot of senior Yankee meetings. In which case, this is an odd hobby you have. You're just making assumptions because they fit your pre-conceptions, trying to validate a point which no-one can ever demonstrate one way or the other.
So, again: you're making things up. And the Yankees have won 2 World Series and 8 division titles in the last 10 years, and have one of the best prospects in all of baseball. Clearly, Cashman is doing something right.
Be seeing you,
Saxmania
Like the rest of you, I'm offering up MY opinion. Money made something right (IMO,) not Cashman, who has signed more bad contracts than anyone in baseball during his years as GM. Not even close.
I already offered up quotes from the Tabata trade as evidence that Hal was pulling the strings at the time. This is years after Cashman stated that he was now completely in charge and would not have resigned as GM, if it was not so.
Not long after this, he began making statements to the effect that the Yankee organization, with him at GM, had spent a lot of bad money on acquiring costly, veteran pitching that did not pay off. Said that the Yankees were recommited to developing pitchers from within the system as a better investment model. Hank make boisterous statements in backing him. This plan lasted one season-- 2008. The next year, along came Sabathia and Burnett.
It has been widely reported that as the 2009 season approached, just as Hal took the lead role, Hal wanted to create a big splash due to the economy driven, lackluster, high end season sales for the new stadium. He was willing to forgo the propossed (by Cashman,) plan for gradual MLB budget reduction and developmental reinforcement in order to boast sales.
Now for guys like Sax read carefully. I loved the signings of Sabathia and Teixeira. Didn't even mind Burnett, although he will be bad money before his contract is up. Everything in his past points to this. Those moves were important bridges from the aging stars to the next generation. My problem is with that even more important next generation. A better, more savy GM would have found a way to parlay the incredile boast to present day success the Steinbrenner money provided and manage to not ravage the upper level of the farm system in the manner he did. Not for the return he got. Not if he really meant what he said two short years ago, when he refrained for going after Santana based on the strength of his commitment to player development.
Statistics point to position players as being better prospect investments, based on lower career damaging injury rates. Cashman's near entire emphasis on developing young pitchers was misplaced. It was bound for failure with a team like the Yankees-- Hughes and Kennedy should have been brought along slowly. Cashman was dead wrong. A 200 million budget should always provide a supply of needed veterans arms, who have proven their genetics have, in the past, handled the unnatural strain of throwing a baseball, in order to contend at the highest level. Boston somehow manages this and brings along prospect at well under 200 million. Pitchers in general are a big risk-- can't live with 'em, can't win without 'em. Therefore, IMO, you don't get rid of the potential upside of a Vizcaino for an old, expensive, and up-and-down Vazquez. You hedge your bets and sign a vet or two and don't risk losing a potential world beater upside. That's the far bigger risk.
If Cashman was any good at all, blessed with the biggest advantage in all of pro sports he could find a way to win now and not compromise the future. At least not until the farm system is finally up to the standards that should be expected, with all the inheirent advantages-- players dropping due to slotting like in no other sport and a free-for-all IFA.
And as I've stated many times before. With the huge Yankee money at his disposal, if he had any real sports accumen, he would realize he could have his cake and eat it too. No Santana meant still having Hughes and signing Sabathia. Didn't learn a thing from it. Tells me there was no plan in place, just dumb luck. The same kind of dumb luck that got him the dream GM gig and managing to keep it despite himself.
what's up doc?
01-30-10, 05:10 PM
The Mets at 15 & the Yankees at 25 though? That's a joke, a really bad joke at that.
How about when he glorifies Boston for stock piling low level prospects yet cuts the Yankees down for doing the same thing? He's a mountain of hypocrisy & his word is nothing that should be taken as gospel. You can call him bias, lazy, or just a moron...none of which would be totally inaccurate.
Boston's system IS better, by far, no getting around it, unless you are biased.
what's up doc?
01-30-10, 05:11 PM
I can't believe this clown has an 8 page thread dedicated to him.
That makes you the bigger clown for adding to it.
what's up doc?
01-30-10, 05:21 PM
Seriously, people just need to ignore him.
Going by your contributions, your going away wouldn't amount to much.
JavyVazquezIsSick
01-30-10, 05:59 PM
Going by your contributions, your going away wouldn't amount to much.
Right, I've been all downhill...
And I sure hope you're not referring to JVIS. Amid the darkness he has been a beckon of light.
http://forums.nyyfans.com/showpost.php?p=6256115&postcount=521
teknetic
01-30-10, 06:24 PM
Anyone remember that dougj character that got suspended for life for adding worthless drivel? Can we do that again?
yankstaketitle
01-30-10, 08:02 PM
Boston's system IS better, by far, no getting around it, unless you are biased.
First guys, this thread is just messed up. I mean if your hating on the Yankees and their staff THIS much, then why exactly are you still here? Why aren't you on some Red Sox board where they think all of the prospects rankers word's are gospel? And hes not saying he thinks the Red Sox system is better hes saying they should not be ranked as high as they are. Come on Red Sox at 2 and Yankees 25? The RS have high talent guys in the lower levels just like the Yankees, maybe better. Upper levels what Lars Anderson and a couple pitching prospects who a bit overhyped? (I don't know their system well but I can't be forgetting that many good people there at that level)
If Montero goes to 1st than he would be in the same position as Lars and I think we can all agree Montero is much much better. Know pitching wise the Yankees have a lot of good pitching guys in the upper minors that don't get any love.
Now Red Sox are better but 23 spots? Come on man just stupid
Philip Hughes Fan
01-30-10, 08:31 PM
in RF-- Tabata, a above average defensive right fielder with an offense edging close to a prime aged IRod's numbers.
L to the O to the L.
IRod from 24-32 had a .522 SLG. Tabata barely surpassed a .400 SLG last year and was under the 2 years before that. He's young, but scouts don't see him developing power. I'd take back the trade knowing now that we still miss the playoffs in 2008, but Tabata is hardly an impact talent. He also had stagnated in NY and had conditioning and attitude problems. Maybe the Yankees are at fault for not being able to work through those, but it's a pretty big warning sign.
in CF-- Jackson, who has stands an excellent chance of being the next Devon White, with possibility of better offensive numbers. And back in his day, for 5 years, Devon White was 1/3 of what was widely believed to be the best OF in baseball.
What? Devon White? The Devon White that won multiple gold gloves and was over 100 runs above average according to total zone? Yes, I'm sure Jackson, repeatedly described as having average skills across the board with awful total zone ratings, will be that good.
I wouldn't be surprised if Jackson is (eventually) a little better with the bat, but he's a high SO, low power hitter and his BABIP is going to crash in the majors. Keith Law doesn't see an impact talent either, saying that as he's moved up the levels he looks more and more like a league average guy. Like Tabata, a fine prospect, but not a core guy and someone you move for Granderson 100 times out of 100.
in P-- Vizcaino, I see a fast mover, provided no major injury. As a comparable upside, go ahead and laugh, I see a poor man's Doc Gooden (the young years.)
Well at least you said poor man's. I'm fine with the Javy trade, but I do hate losing Arodys. He actually does have impact talent, although he's still a lottery ticket considering his experience, back problems, and lack of a good 3rd pitch.
what's up doc?
01-30-10, 08:36 PM
"And I sure hope you're not referring to JVIS. Amid the darkness he has been a beckon of light."
Opppppppps, I was hoping you forgot that one. It pains me to have to harken back to those more lucid times.
Really not your fault, should have never said what I said. They finally got a hold of you. You're to far gone now to realize it.
It's like that old movie "The Stepford Wives." You're now robotically walking around, glassy eyed, with an empty stare and wearing a '70's style Karen Carpenter granny dress.
what's up doc?
01-30-10, 08:40 PM
Anyone remember that dougj character that got suspended for life for adding worthless drivel? Can we do that again?
Why? Am I taking time away from your book burning activities?
After reading some prospect projections, I think Hughes2.50 is back.
what's up doc?
01-30-10, 08:57 PM
The Mets at 15 & the Yankees at 25 though? That's a joke, a really bad joke at that.
How about when he glorifies Boston for stock piling low level prospects yet cuts the Yankees down for doing the same thing? He's a mountain of hypocrisy & his word is nothing that should be taken as gospel. You can call him bias, lazy, or just a moron...none of which would be totally inaccurate.
He devotes 3 sentences per team. He gives an overview for each. The thing that strikes me with the Red Sox is the fact that they really are unwavering with their commitment to the farm system. Talent at all levels is apparent. Despite a fairly recent, historic spike in MLB payroll, their finacial commitment to the farm has not declined as a result. In the limited space available, I can see why he choose to say what he did. And it does pain me to say it. Don't like them. Honest.
As for the Yankees, the same limited space was devoted to why the Yankees fell as low in the rankings as they did. They traded two of their top 3 prospects. It's a national article and not everybody is following what the Yankees did in the offseason. Again, it's an overview, hardly in depth. Simply devoted the space to the more obvious issue.
A mountain of hypocracy? Now really.
what's up doc?
01-30-10, 09:12 PM
First guys, this thread is just messed up. I mean if your hating on the Yankees and their staff THIS much, then why exactly are you still here? Why aren't you on some Red Sox board where they think all of the prospects rankers word's are gospel? And hes not saying he thinks the Red Sox system is better hes saying they should not be ranked as high as they are. Come on Red Sox at 2 and Yankees 25? The RS have high talent guys in the lower levels just like the Yankees, maybe better. Upper levels what Lars Anderson and a couple pitching prospects who a bit overhyped? (I don't know their system well but I can't be forgetting that many good people there at that level)
If Montero goes to 1st than he would be in the same position as Lars and I think we can all agree Montero is much much better. Know pitching wise the Yankees have a lot of good pitching guys in the upper minors that don't get any love.
Now Red Sox are better but 23 spots? Come on man just stupid
I am a proactive fan. I expect more from a 200 million dollar roster. During the Steinbrenners rein, the Yankees have always spent to get the best playing talent. Must give them credit for that. Yet, when it comes to GM hirings, they have treated this franchise like a small, family business. They hire from within the closed oganizational circle and their comfort zone. Having Cashman at GM is like Chumlee from that reality show "Pawn Stars" being made head of purchasing. Place Cashman as GM of any other team and he's gone in no time, having been exposed.
If they ever conducted an industry wide search, headed by professional baseball people, looking to hire the most talented GM, the league would have to change the rules to in order to slow the Yankees juggernaut. Beinfast, Jocketty, (Epstein) or a guy like Terry Ryan. Judging from what the Twins get out of their system, at their budget, bringing their value principles to a franchise with this capital and willingness to spent...........now that's a thought that scares the rest of the league to death.
what's up doc?
01-30-10, 09:27 PM
L to the O to the L.
IRod from 24-32 had a .522 SLG. Tabata barely surpassed a .400 SLG last year and was under the 2 years before that. He's young, but scouts don't see him developing power. I'd take back the trade knowing now that we still miss the playoffs in 2008, but Tabata is hardly an impact talent. He also had stagnated in NY and had conditioning and attitude problems. Maybe the Yankees are at fault for not being able to work through those, but it's a pretty big warning sign.
What? Devon White? The Devon White that won multiple gold gloves and was over 100 runs above average according to total zone? Yes, I'm sure Jackson, repeatedly described as having average skills across the board with awful total zone ratings, will be that good.
I wouldn't be surprised if Jackson is (eventually) a little better with the bat, but he's a high SO, low power hitter and his BABIP is going to crash in the majors. Keith Law doesn't see an impact talent either, saying that as he's moved up the levels he looks more and more like a league average guy. Like Tabata, a fine prospect, but not a core guy and someone you move for Granderson 100 times out of 100.
Well at least you said poor man's. I'm fine with the Javy trade, but I do hate losing Arodys. He actually does have impact talent, although he's still a lottery ticket considering his experience, back problems, and lack of a good 3rd pitch.
Given time, many prospects exceed their minor league numbers offensively, due to the fact that in the minors they play almost exclusively at night, under inferior lighting. I give Tabata and Jackson a good chance of being above average offensive contributers at their respective positions and very good fielders, especially Jackson. Maybe not core players but their cost savings can help you go out and get some.
what's up doc?
01-30-10, 09:33 PM
I'm done for now. I'm entering a self imposed exile. Have had enough of bruising the delicate ego's here. I will return towards the end of the year only to humbly take my lumps if my alternate plan proves to be all wet.
Saxmania
01-31-10, 03:27 AM
Like the rest of you, I'm offering up MY opinion. Money made something right (IMO,) not Cashman, who has signed more bad contracts than anyone in baseball during his years as GM. Not even close.
Yeah, I can't say that this stands up to scrutiny. Juan Pierre? Chan Ho Park? Bobby Higginson? Cashman's made some bad signings, and some other OK signings that turned out bad, but you severely underestimate how bad some other GMs have been.
I already offered up quotes from the Tabata trade as evidence that Hal was pulling the strings at the time. This is years after Cashman stated that he was now completely in charge and would not have resigned as GM, if it was not so.
Hal's the owner. That makes him the boss. What do you think Cashman could have done? Wrestled the driving wheel from him and knocked him out with a WS trophy? Introduced a Bill of Impeachment in the Senate?
The Steinbrenners get to decide how their team is run. Cashman offers his expertise and executes their orders. The level of detail that owners offer for their strategies varies greatly; historically the Steinbrenners have been very hands-on, like John Henry. Others are more distant, and the GMs have more latitude.
The more you post, the more you give an impression of someone who doesn't understand how baseball teams are run.
Not long after this, he began making statements to the effect that the Yankee organization, with him at GM, had spent a lot of bad money on acquiring costly, veteran pitching that did not pay off. Said that the Yankees were recommited to developing pitchers from within the system as a better investment model. Hank make boisterous statements in backing him. This plan lasted one season-- 2008. The next year, along came Sabathia and Burnett.
But you say below you love Sabathia and Burnett, and they cost the Yankees no young pitching (except maybe a draft pick or two), and they're not that old. So this isn't really a criticism, is it?
It has been widely reported that as the 2009 season approached, just as Hal took the lead role, Hal wanted to create a big splash due to the economy driven, lackluster, high end season sales for the new stadium. He was willing to forgo the propossed (by Cashman,) plan for gradual MLB budget reduction and developmental reinforcement in order to boast sales.
But you have no idea if this is true. It could be that Cashman and Steinbrenner had always agreed that 2009 would be the Year of the Big Spend, and didn't want the market to take advantage of them by jacking up the price of free agents. It could be that they changed their mind.
Now for guys like Sax read carefully. I loved the signings of Sabathia and Teixeira. Didn't even mind Burnett, although he will be bad money before his contract is up. Everything in his past points to this. Those moves were important bridges from the aging stars to the next generation. My problem is with that even more important next generation. A better, more savy GM would have found a way to parlay the incredile boast to present day success the Steinbrenner money provided and manage to not ravage the upper level of the farm system in the manner he did. Not for the return he got. Not if he really meant what he said two short years ago, when he refrained for going after Santana based on the strength of his commitment to player development.
Cashman's managed to hold on to Montero, Hughes, Chamberlain, McAllister, Romine, Banuelos, and Nova. Did I wish that he'd managed to keep the entire farm system intact? Yes. Was it feasible without severely reducing the quality of the 2010 Yankees? Probably not. Of the suggestions you've offered, Sheets and Bedard are big question marks, Damon will be 36 and his numbers were boosted by playing in NYS (which Johnson and Granderson should now see the benefit of), and Byrd's not good.
Statistics point to position players as being better prospect investments, based on lower career damaging injury rates. Cashman's near entire emphasis on developing young pitchers was misplaced. It was bound for failure with a team like the Yankees-- Hughes and Kennedy should have been brought along slowly. Cashman was dead wrong. A 200 million budget should always provide a supply of needed veterans arms, who have proven their genetics have, in the past, handled the unnatural strain of throwing a baseball, in order to contend at the highest level. Boston somehow manages this and brings along prospect at well under 200 million. Pitchers in general are a big risk-- can't live with 'em, can't win without 'em. Therefore, IMO, you don't get rid of the potential upside of a Vizcaino for an old, expensive, and up-and-down Vazquez. You hedge your bets and sign a vet or two and don't risk losing a potential world beater upside. That's the far bigger risk.
No, it's really not. Cashman's history demonstrates that he's been very good at figuring when to let a prospect go; usually when their value has been at their highest. A prospect as far from the majors as Vizcaino is a lottery ticket, while you seem to be thinking he has a 60% chance of being Felix Hernandez. It's just not realistic.
If Vizcaino has one season as good as Vazquez did last year, he will have massively beaten the odds for starting prospects. They just are big, big gambles.
If Cashman was any good at all, blessed with the biggest advantage in all of pro sports he could find a way to win now and not compromise the future. At least not until the farm system is finally up to the standards that should be expected, with all the inheirent advantages-- players dropping due to slotting like in no other sport and a free-for-all IFA.
Well, Cashman is winning now, and has recently graduated two very good starting prospects, one All-Star level 2nd baseman, and has an All-Star-quality hitter who might stick at C on the way. That's really very good. When you graduate players to the majors, your minors take a hit; that's unavoidable.
And as I've stated many times before. With the huge Yankee money at his disposal, if he had any real sports accumen, he would realize he could have his cake and eat it too. No Santana meant still having Hughes and signing Sabathia. Didn't learn a thing from it. Tells me there was no plan in place, just dumb luck. The same kind of dumb luck that got him the dream GM gig and managing to keep it despite himself.
Um, there was no-one nearly the quality of Sabathia on the free agent market this offseason. Plus, signing Type-A free agents costs draft picks. Your proposed veteran signings would make the Yankees worse, not better, in order to protect prospects with a very good chance of failure.
And, of course, your ludicrous rhetoric of Cashman as a 'butcher' and a 'jellyfish' simply have no relationship to reality, as I've demonstrated above.
Be seeing you,
Saxmania
Saxmania
01-31-10, 03:29 AM
Given time, many prospects exceed their minor league numbers offensively, due to the fact that in the minors they play almost exclusively at night, under inferior lighting. I give Tabata and Jackson a good chance of being above average offensive contributers at their respective positions and very good fielders, especially Jackson. Maybe not core players but their cost savings can help you go out and get some.
So the prospects you like will perform better than their track record indicates, but all the prospects who Cashman traded away, who were higher-rated and had better minor-league track records, and then never went on to do much of anything, are irrelevant to discussions of Cashman's ability?
How short-sighted.
Be seeing you,
Saxmania
budstinks
01-31-10, 02:13 PM
Just out of curiousity has anyone a list of players signed for say $500k + over the past 10 years. By year?
Just curious to see if there is any pattern.
budstinks
02-02-10, 04:54 AM
This may explain some of the Yankees drafting slump.
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/blog_article/analyzing-the-mlb-draft-using-war/
This may explain some of the Yankees drafting slump.
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/blog_article/analyzing-the-mlb-draft-using-war/
Interesting.
Focusing on the First Round
Here is the WAR/year based on draft position within the first round:
1-10-- 1.417 WAR/year
11-20-- 1.115 WAR/year
21-30-- .353 WAR/year
There is a drastic drop in performance between picks 11-20 and 21-30. The difference between the top 10 and 11-20 is not nearly as large. What does this mean? There is likely a general consensus of the top 20 or so prospects each year. After this however, the talent quickly becomes more diluted and it becomes increasingly tougher to find players who might contribute in the major leagues.
yankee82093
02-03-10, 01:08 AM
so according to that article, teams like the Nationals and Pirates are perennially drafting prospects 4 times better then what falls to us. However in recent years we have been taking more signability cases, or players that are actually 11-20 talent but fall to 21-30. This seems like a very wise move.
budstinks
03-11-10, 06:51 AM
ping to include IFA Biatchings and arguements
CODasinGOD
08-13-10, 03:01 AM
I feel I need to start by stating.....I am a mellow fellow and a cool dude. Don't mean to stir any pots. I simply felt a need to review this thread at this time.
So how did that undearly departed, nasty ole troll, Doc (?, I think that was his handle) do with his alternate plan for the season? Just askin'.
Peace and Love.
JavyVazquezIsSick
08-13-10, 04:40 AM
:lol: RO this clown again mods.
CODasinGOD
08-14-10, 07:52 AM
:lol: RO this clown again mods.
I guess it's semantics, because my definition of a clown is a guy who stays on a message board day and night and never has anything substanative to say, yet always manages to say it with a smugness that hints at an intellect that simply isn't there. But nice try in avoiding the indisputable.
Saxmania
08-14-10, 08:20 AM
Was that the alternate plan that included Ben Sheets as a Yankee starter and claimed that Nick Swisher was on the decline? Or the alternate plan that confidently told us all that Cashman would butcher the Yankees' farm system if not stopped? (Surely no single line of thinking could be so silly as to include both . . .)
[re-reads thread] AND Bedard? Hee-hee . . .
Be seeing you,
Saxmania
JavyVazquezIsSick
08-14-10, 08:42 AM
I guess it's semantics, because my definition of a clown is a guy who stays on a message board day and night and never has anything substanative to say, yet always manages to say it with a smugness that hints at an intellect that simply isn't there. But nice try in avoiding the indisputable.
No. You're the guy who cares enough about an internet message board to come back after being RO'd, create a new account, act like you're someone else, then call yourself a "mellow fellow and a cool dude." :roflmao:
Saxmania
08-14-10, 10:13 AM
I dunno, JVIS. I'm skeptical - after all, if I were as embarrassed by my predictions as "what's up doc" must be by his, I would avoid digging up this thread altogether to prevent further humiliation. It would be the act of an imbecile to come back on as a sockpuppet and perpetuate the shame, wouldn't it?
And I'm sure "CODasinGOD" is no imbecile.
Be seeing you,
Saxmania
Powered by vBulletin™ Version 4.0.7 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
0