View Full Version : Just an Idea; Moose/Thome....
tatanka9
11-11-05, 09:03 PM
I was just wondering if the Phillies might be willing to change the names on the paycheck and have Moose pitch for them rather that have Thome bat for them. Thome would clear up our 1B/DH situation, and Moose going to the Phils lets us lower our SP age and cost. (Puts him near his farm). Then go after Washburn as a LH arm. (and BJ, of course).
Just a side note: The Japanese C is looking for $5.5-6.0 mill for 3 years. Jorge could be a decent trade chip to the right team. Posada and Pavano for Ichiro? Would mean RJ, Washburn, Wang, Chacon, and Wright/Small in the rotation. Without the catastrophic injuries of '05, they could be a strong group and look at trading deadline for help if necessary.
And a line-up with Ichiro, Jeter, Arod, Thome, Sheffield, Matsui, Giambi, Furcal and Molina/Hernandez/Japanese FA, would still be devastating.
AMYanks
11-11-05, 09:04 PM
Thome has 3 more years on his contract, Mussina has only one. I'll pass.
yanksconstantino24
11-11-05, 09:05 PM
Why would the Yankees do that? Mussina is still a pretty good starting pitcher, and Jim Thome is not the player he was. The Phillies are trying to give him away, so why would you give up Mike Mussina for him.
conkermaniac
11-11-05, 09:07 PM
What is our 1B/DH situation? Thome is not a particularly excellent fielder, and it seems that Giambi is better than him. Why not just keep Moose, and see what we can get out of him next year. I think he'll show a return to form.
I also trust that Posada will rebound. Trust me, he's not done. His defense is still improving. We may dearly regret trading Pavano--he could still be a #2 or #3 starter for us, but he hasn't had the opportunity to show us his ability.
Yankeeah
11-11-05, 09:26 PM
Dear god no.
Thome is around the corner from being dumb---err---done.
The 1996-2000 Yanks won on pitching, not hitting.
See Giants, San Francisco
tatanka9
11-11-05, 09:36 PM
Sorry, I don't buy your assessment of either Jorge or Moose. Washburn is either an upgrade at this point in career (or a wash at worst) and brings it from the other side. Switch has high ceiling potential and will be the last time we can get anything for Moose.
Posada has been mentioned prominently as moving to 1B or DH. Since neither is what he signed on for, having Thome as a 1B/DH option with much greater power and a .400+ Career OBP seems more rational. Thome also gives more line-up protection to moving guys up from the minors and giving them protection so they don't have to be legends right away.
If this gives us a chance with Pavano as the lead chip to get Ichiro, I say do it. Yes, Pavano may improve this year, but Ichiro is a given quantity and plays every day. Getting our staff younger and our defense stronger while not giving away offense seems to be a 2006 goal. Yes, Thome's numbers are similar to Giambi's, but how many games do 7 errors a year cost you? And on the other side, how many games can 40 HR's a year win you? Furcal next to Thome or Giambi would improve both positions.
tatanka9
11-11-05, 09:41 PM
OK, about the pitching wins...
...but it should not have to be revamped year after year (Yankees 2001-5)!!!
Let our young guys develop with a solid Offense around them and a good defense to back them up. Wang, Chacon, Washburn and wright could develop quite nicely with some tooling from our current ml prospects. Mussina is gone next year (2007) regardless. Think big or be a Cus fan!!!
IncredibleByNature
11-11-05, 09:46 PM
Dear god no.
My thoughts exactly.
JeterRodriguezSheff
11-11-05, 09:46 PM
PLEASE NO, Thome will suck it up in this stage of his career
MattUNC2003
11-11-05, 09:53 PM
Just what the Yanks need. Another declining player with a huge contract. Definitely pass on that one. Nice suggestion though.
I still have full faith in Moose being a productive pitcher. Especially if we get our damn rotation back in order next year. A healthy Pavano, Wang, and Wright (maybe to the pen, maybe not?) should help boost the rotation and take stress loads off of Moose (and even RJ).
Didn't Moose have the 3rd highest pitcher abuse points this year? Wasn't he something like 2nd in 2004? I think his health problems have stemmed from that. Give him one year with reduced pressure on himself and his arm...and I think he'll definitely perform like the Moose of old.
OMG Why?
This makes NO SENSE. Absolutely none.
brosiusbuddy
11-11-05, 10:21 PM
Thome would clear up our 1B/DH situation, and Moose going to the Phils lets us lower our SP age and cost. Then go after Washburn as a LH arm.
Just a side note: The Japanese C is looking for $5.5-6.0 mill for 3 years. Jorge could be a decent trade chip to the right team. Posada and Pavano for Ichiro? Would mean RJ, Washburn, Wang, Chacon, and Wright/Small in the rotation. .
And a line-up with Ichiro, Jeter, Arod, Thome, Sheffield, Matsui, Giambi, Furcal and Molina/Hernandez/Japanese FA, would still be devastating.
There is no other way to say this and I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings, but these trade/acquisition ideas are awful.
Thome would not clear up our 1B/DH situation, he would just further complicate it. We'd have 2 aging sluggers who aren't stellar defensively with huge contracts to split time between 1st and DH. We'd be forced to keep a 3rd firstbasemen on the roster for a defensive replacement.
Mussina is still good. He is no longer an ace, but Mussina in the 3 or 4 spot is more valuable than Thome.
You make your Pavano/Ichiro trade sound so simple, as if it would be that easy to just swap the 3 players and you make a Washburn signing sound like an automatic as if there will be no other teams competing for him. You can't rely on all of these things working out as planned because thats unrealistic and if you make trades that effect eachother and they dont all work out, you're screwed
The Japanese catcher is a bad idea all around. We'd have to pay good money for an unproven. None of our pitchers speak his language. None of our coaches speak his language. Please keep in mind that a catcher has to be able to communicate very well with his teammates. He would likely see a decline in his Japanese numbers. He batted .299 with 30 hr. That would drop just like Matsuis', KAZ and Hideki's, numbers dropped. Probably even more so because at the same time he'd be trying to get accustomed to MLB pitching, ballparks, and different pitchers, he'd have the responsibility of learning all he could about his pitchers.
Edit: Also, before you're so quick to trade Pavano, please think about the rammifications of such a move. I doubt we've seen the best of him. He had a good start and his road numbers while he was healthy were great. We have a new pitching coach, 2 actually, and I'd love to see the 2 of them work with him before we trade him away. He was our prize signing last offseason.
Another rammification would be this. If we trade Pavano after 1 season, just like we did to Vazquez, think of the message that sends to potential future FA interests. What FA would want to come pitch for NY if they know that if they fail to meet and exceed expectations, they will very likely be dumped?
Eddie160
11-11-05, 10:32 PM
no trade clause besides the Yankees need a CF and set up guys not another senior
nyg02005
11-11-05, 10:54 PM
I think moose has a no trade clause. And if you are going to trade him, you can do better than thome.
Yankee Clipper
11-11-05, 10:54 PM
You're addressing issues that don't need to be addressed. First lets get a pen together and a CF.
ryanthe13th
11-12-05, 01:16 AM
Line for the DH Spot:
1. Gary Sheffield
2. Jason Giambi
3. Hideki Matsui
4. Jorge Posada(presuming he is still here when his number is up)
BroadwayBomber55
11-12-05, 01:22 AM
I'll pass on this crappy deal.
Mattpat11
11-12-05, 01:45 AM
Another rammification would be this. If we trade Pavano after 1 season, just like we did to Vazquez, think of the message that sends to potential future FA interests. "Try really hard not to stink up the joint." I'd like to think that that is a universal philosophy among not only the Yankees, but any team.
Further more, I'd really like to think that potential free agents are damned sure that they're not going to stink of the joint.
Mattpat11
11-12-05, 01:46 AM
Edit: Also, before you're so quick to trade Pavano, please think about the rammifications of such a move. I doubt we've seen the best of him.
We didn't. The Marlins did in 04.
OKCYankee
11-12-05, 02:40 AM
I see no logic whatsoever in this deal. Let's not reinvent the wheel here.... That kind of activity is likely to set us back to the 80's, when every big name with a past came to the Yankees and failed miserably. It was painful... Steve Kemp, Dave Collins, Roy Smalley.... we have to stay the course.
Babe Rules
11-12-05, 06:35 AM
Pass. Move on.
surge511
11-12-05, 06:58 AM
Yeah, I have no interest in this deal. Thome looks like he's done, and Moose only has one more year on his contract. Thome has three, and he would just be one of those awful contracts that is holding up the payroll each year he is here.
rightfielder21
11-12-05, 07:18 AM
OMG Why?
This makes NO SENSE. Absolutely none.
Exactly...
brosiusbuddy
11-12-05, 08:16 AM
"Try really hard not to stink up the joint." I'd like to think that that is a universal philosophy among not only the Yankees, but any team.
Further more, I'd really like to think that potential free agents are damned sure that they're not going to stink of the joint.
Pavano didnt necessarily stink up the joint. He had some problems early after being drilled in the head and then he developed an injury that cut his season short. If he were traded because of that, other pitchers would notice it.
WTrain44
11-12-05, 10:25 AM
tatanka9's IP was traced to the Yankee offices is Tampa.
Doesn't really seem like a good idea. We have too many 1B, DHs and we need pitching.
Mattpat11
11-12-05, 11:25 AM
Pavano didnt necessarily stink up the joint.
100 IP 129 hits 66 Runs (53 ER) 17 homeruns 4.77 ERA 93 ERA+
Saying he stunk up the joint is a polite way of saying things that would get me banned here.
brosiusbuddy
11-12-05, 12:24 PM
100 IP 129 hits 66 Runs (53 ER) 17 homeruns 4.77 ERA 93 ERA+
Saying he stunk up the joint is a polite way of saying things that would get me banned here.
If he had pitched an entire season with no injuries and no linedrives off his skull and had been consistently bad, I'd agree with you. But I'm willing to look back at his postseason success in '03, his stellar '04 season, and the bright spots this past season and give him the opportunity to prove himself in '06. If he's not the number 2 we thought we were getting, it wouldn't be the end of the world because between Johnson, Mussina, Wang, Chacon, Small, Wright and Pavano I'm sure we could put together a formidable rotation.
So put shortly, don't trade Pavano unless you can get a long term CF solution in return.
montrealer
11-12-05, 12:27 PM
We need pitching.....why give away on our best starter?
Why would Mariners want an over the hill catcher whom stilled owed about 20 mil?
Glad your not our GM....No offense.
brosiusbuddy
11-12-05, 12:29 PM
We need pitching.....why give away on our best starter?
.
You could ask 5 different people who our best starter is and get 5 different answers.
Our best starter seemingly changes every few weeks.
You could ask 5 different people who our best starter is and get 5 different answers.
Our best starter seemingly changes every few weeks.
Good. That means if one gets hurt we're not in an awful spot.
AMYanks
11-12-05, 12:47 PM
100 IP 129 hits 66 Runs (53 ER) 17 homeruns 4.77 ERA 93 ERA+
Saying he stunk up the joint is a polite way of saying things that would get me banned here.
Considering Clemens had a 97 ERA+ his first year here (and he was healthier than Pavano), I'm willing to give Pavano a second chance.
brosiusbuddy
11-12-05, 12:58 PM
Good. That means if one gets hurt we're not in an awful spot.
Yeah, Im fine with all our starters being our ace throughout different points in the season. As long as it means 1 starter has a white hot streak and not 4 of our starters having a slump.
Yeah, Im fine with all our starters being our ace throughout different points in the season. As long as it means 1 starter has a white hot streak and not 4 of our starters having a slump.
I agree.
Considering Clemens had a 97 ERA+ his first year here (and he was healthier than Pavano), I'm willing to give Pavano a second chance.
I'm willing to give Pavano a second chance too but that's only because we can't get a fair trade for him. I do believe that he's much better pitcher than he was last year but if I could deal him for the right price right now, I would.
AMYanks
11-12-05, 01:03 PM
I'm willing to give Pavano a second chance too but that's only because we can't get a fair trade for him. I do believe that he's much better pitcher than he was last year but if I could deal him for the right price right now, I would.
I would, too, if the right deal came along. But pretty much everyone is tradeable for the right deal.
If Pavano was good for only one year(as some high strung Yankee fans want you to believe) then we would have been WS champs in '03.
I believe he will be one of our best pitchers next year. We can't keep signing these 25-29 year old pitchers and dumping them when they don't light the world up in their first season. What young pitcher would want to come here? Even for the money.
rivera,s cutter
11-12-05, 01:47 PM
a very big PASS!!!!!
This thread is still open?
:-padlock-:-padlock-:-padlock-:-padlock-:-padlock-
tatanka9
11-12-05, 02:21 PM
I always like hearing comments from Johnny-come-lately bandwagoners. I heard similar comments a couple years back when I proposed that the Yankees could get A-Rod without expanding the payroll excessively. All I heard was, "It can't be done, Never happen, or stupid idea." OK kids, I've been following this team since 1958, and have seen the flow of the team through a wide variety of situations. What my suggestion was meant to respond to is the crybabyies who think we don't dare trade young players or any offense to get better. Well, putting a bat like Thome's in the lineup 5/6ths of the time allows you to play the young guys from the farm system with out having to rely on them for offense when one of these ace pitchers blows up for 4-9 runs against modest competition.
Every idea/rumor that hits this board is frought with problems, but when it touches on your favorite player, the response becomes ridiculous. About four years ago I proposed trading the future HOF Ramiro Mendoza and was called anything in the book. Don't you wish we'd held onto him!!! Thome's 2005 was affected as much by injuries as Moose's, but he showed signs of returning to form. Next winter, Moose will be done and we'll have nothing to show for it.
I didn't proposed this instead of RP, CF,C, etc. This was in addition, because I don't think Sheffield can get another 100 rbi season out of his back, and I don't see us falling into another Small/Wang bailout next year. If you do, then prepare for year 6 of a non-Yankee WS. I was on the Forum for #26, and I don't want to wait another 5 years for #27. Keep thinking inside the box, that's what gets you boxed in!!
Mattpat11
11-12-05, 03:39 PM
Considering Clemens had a 97 ERA+ his first year here (and he was healthier than Pavano), I'm willing to give Pavano a second chance.So now we're comparing Pavano to quite possibly the best pitcher ever.
Wow.
AMYanks
11-12-05, 03:52 PM
So now we're comparing Pavano to quite possibly the best pitcher ever.
Wow.
No, but after 1 1/2 seasons before last year, he deserves a chance to prove himself. Clemens was bad in his first year, as well.
AMYanks
11-12-05, 03:54 PM
I always like hearing comments from Johnny-come-lately bandwagoners. I heard similar comments a couple years back when I proposed that the Yankees could get A-Rod without expanding the payroll excessively. All I heard was, "It can't be done, Never happen, or stupid idea." OK kids, I've been following this team since 1958, and have seen the flow of the team through a wide variety of situations. What my suggestion was meant to respond to is the crybabyies who think we don't dare trade young players or any offense to get better. Well, putting a bat like Thome's in the lineup 5/6ths of the time allows you to play the young guys from the farm system with out having to rely on them for offense when one of these ace pitchers blows up for 4-9 runs against modest competition.
Every idea/rumor that hits this board is frought with problems, but when it touches on your favorite player, the response becomes ridiculous. About four years ago I proposed trading the future HOF Ramiro Mendoza and was called anything in the book. Don't you wish we'd held onto him!!! Thome's 2005 was affected as much by injuries as Moose's, but he showed signs of returning to form. Next winter, Moose will be done and we'll have nothing to show for it.
I didn't proposed this instead of RP, CF,C, etc. This was in addition, because I don't think Sheffield can get another 100 rbi season out of his back, and I don't see us falling into another Small/Wang bailout next year. If you do, then prepare for year 6 of a non-Yankee WS. I was on the Forum for #26, and I don't want to wait another 5 years for #27. Keep thinking inside the box, that's what gets you boxed in!!
You're concerned that we can't get another 100 RBI season out of Sheffield's back? What would you expect from Thome, with his injury problems? Perhaps the surgery fixed his elbow problems, but it's too big a risk.
It's also not smart to replace a large contract that expires after 2006, with a large contract that expires after 2008.
Iknowcool
11-12-05, 04:14 PM
I do see your point in trying to unload Mussina. Quite frankly, he is not the same pitcher as he was before. I see a ERA over 4.5, maybe in the 5's for him next year. Also, he is easily replaced, Small/Wright and even Henn or Depaula could put up similar numbers. Even if we can get marginal prospects out of him, maybe we could negotiate where the other team would pay half his salary. That ten-million could sign Kevin Millwood. I can't really see where all this sentiment about keeping him is coming from. Fans show no support for Williams when he started slipping. But when a white player doesn't live up to his past, its a "well, he has been good in the past" party.
JavyVazquezIsSick
11-12-05, 04:16 PM
I'd do it, Moose has a NTC I believe...
Mattpat11
11-12-05, 04:21 PM
Clemens was bad in his first year, as well. I don't like Roger. I think he's a pretty crappy all around person.
But he's still the best pitcher I have ever see. And its insulting to him to say "well, because Roger did it, (x) should do it too!" Carl Pavano is no Roger Clemens. He never was Roger Clemens. He never will be as good as Roger Clemens. It blows my mind that we've decided he can do something because Roger Clemens can. There is a reason Roger Clemens can do certain things. Its because he's very possibly the best ever. Carl Pavano? Not so much.
Further more, I think it was fairly safe to assume that 99 was an aberration in Clemens career, given that it was by far his worst and he had a 15 or so year body of work to judge it against and realize that "he really should be much better"
Carl Pavano pitching to roughly his career numbers (when you factor in league change) doesn't instill me with confidence
And before you bring it up. Randy Johnson is one of the best ever as well (and all and all, he had a pretty good year) so we have more than enough reason to think he'll be better next year as well.
The back end of Mussina's career appears to be that of a slightly above average major league starter. The back end of Thome's career appears to be a guy on the DL. Given the difference in length between the two contracts, I'd say this is a no brainer.
AMYanks
11-12-05, 04:22 PM
I don't like Roger. I think he's a pretty crappy all around person.
But he's still the best pitcher I have ever see. And its insulting to him to say "well, because Roger did it, (x) should do it too!" Carl Pavano is no Roger Clemens. He never was Roger Clemens. He never will be as good as Roger Clemens. It blows my mind that we've decided he can do something because Roger Clemens can. There is a reason Roger Clemens can do certain things. Its because he's very possibly the best ever. Carl Pavano? Not so much.
Further more, I think it was fairly safe to assume that 99 was an aberration in Clemens career, given that it was by far his worst and he had a 15 or so year body of work to judge it against and realize that "he really should be much better"
Carl Pavano pitching to roughly his career numbers (when you factor in league change) doesn't instill me with confidence
And before you bring it up. Randy Johnson is one of the best ever as well (and all and all, he had a pretty good year) so we have more than enough reason to think he'll be better next year as well.
Ok... but he still deserves a chance to bounce back.
Mattpat11
11-12-05, 04:23 PM
Ok... but he still deserves a chance to bounce back.unless we find something better in the meantime.
JavyVazquezIsSick
11-12-05, 04:41 PM
The back end of Mussina's career appears to be that of a slightly above average major league starter. The back end of Thome's career appears to be a guy on the DL. Given the difference in length between the two contracts, I'd say this is a no brainer.
He ranked 28th in ERA of 44 players in the AL that qualified. Hes not above average any longer...
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/pitching?league=al
He ranked 28th in ERA of 44 players in the AL that qualified. Hes not above average any longer...
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/pitching?league=al
Likely because he was injured for a significant portion of the season.
He ranked 28th in ERA of 44 players in the AL that qualified. Hes not above average any longer...
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/pitching?league=al
An ERA+ of 101, which is what he had, is slightly above average, which is what I said.
JavyVazquezIsSick
11-12-05, 05:05 PM
An ERA+ of 101, which is what he had, is slightly above average, which is what I said.
Whats the league average?
Whats the league average?
For ERA+? Always 100, though that also includes relief pitchers, who tend to have lower ERAs than starters. Either way, 101 is slightly above average.
JavyVazquezIsSick
11-12-05, 05:17 PM
For ERA+? Always 100, though that also includes relief pitchers, who tend to have lower ERAs than starters. Either way, 101 is slightly above average.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/AL.shtml
I don't see how league average can stay constant?
Not park adjusted but 4.35 was the leagues ERA in 2005...
http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/AL.shtml
I don't see how league average can stay constant?
Not park adjusted but 4.35 was the leagues ERA in 2005...
The same way that the average EQA is .260 every year and the average OPS+ is 100 every year. They are just measures that reflect whatever the average that year happens to be, allowing for easier comparison year to year. In other words, it's a ratio of the league's ERA (adjusted to the pitcher's ballpark) to that of the pitcher.
JavyVazquezIsSick
11-12-05, 05:59 PM
The same way that the average EQA is .260 every year and the average OPS+ is 100 every year. They are just measures that reflect whatever the average that year happens to be, allowing for easier comparison year to year. In other words, it's a ratio of the league's ERA (adjusted to the pitcher's ballpark) to that of the pitcher.
Yeah but it seems silly to do it that way when trying to figure out if a pitcher is average/above average/below average when compared to the rest of the AL...
nyctalopia
11-12-05, 06:29 PM
ok, mussina is more than capable as a #2 starter, and he only has 1 year left on his contract. why would we swap him with an injury-prone 1B/DH with 3 more years left on a giant contract? and when did we suddenly develop a 1B/DH situation?
Yeah but it seems silly to do it that way when trying to figure out if a pitcher is average/above average/below average when compared to the rest of the AL...
It's no different than you linking to the 2005 AL ERA. That has starters and relievers in it. ERA+ just creates a ratio so that its easier to compare across seasons without having to look up the average ERA and adjust for park every time. As long as you understand what it is, there's nothing wrong with it, per se. Anyway, ERA in any form is a bad way to judge relievers.
JavyVazquezIsSick
11-12-05, 07:13 PM
It's no different than you linking to the 2005 AL ERA. That has starters and relievers in it. ERA+ just creates a ratio so that its easier to compare across seasons without having to look up the average ERA and adjust for park every time. As long as you understand what it is, there's nothing wrong with it, per se. Anyway, ERA in any form is a bad way to judge relievers.
My first link didn't, the first link just showed SPs. I understand that ERA+ allows you to compare across seasons, but I'm not looking to do that. I'm trying to gauge where Mussina landed as a SP in the AL IN 2005. Also last year Mussina's ERA+ was 98. He's an average to below average pitcher and probably only be worse next year...
My first link didn't, the first link just showed SPs. I understand that ERA+ allows you to compare across seasons, but I'm not looking to do that. I'm trying to gauge where Mussina landed as a SP in the AL IN 2005. Also last year Mussina's ERA+ was 98. He's an average to below average pitcher and probably only be worse next year...
In 2005, he was slightly above average. That's what an ERA+ of 101 means. It was 98 the year before, btw, not last year. Again, given that he's not a reliever, I'd argue that's no worse than average overall the last 2 years. And again, given that Thome can't even play and that he's signed for substantially longer, this is a silly trade.
parkerstrong
11-12-05, 07:49 PM
Phillies would love that deal!!!!! No thanks! Maybe trade Mussina for Howard, but not Thome.
JavyVazquezIsSick
11-12-05, 08:44 PM
In 2005, he was slightly above average. That's what an ERA+ of 101 means. It was 98 the year before, btw, not last year. Again, given that he's not a reliever, I'd argue that's no worse than average overall the last 2 years. And again, given that Thome can't even play and that he's signed for substantially longer, this is a silly trade.
Yes, last year meaning 2004 season, Mussina's ERA+ was 98. ERA+ of 101 is average to me. I guess you can call it slight but its very slight. I didn't realize there was a difference in contract, I thought it was the same. I thought they both had the same amount of years and money left on their contracts, so I was willing to take the gamble because of our excess of SP, and Thome's history as a hitter. Also, he is expected to have a full recovery next year so I don't know why you won't think he wouldn't be able to play...
longtimeyankeefan
11-13-05, 11:04 AM
I know 40,000 Phillies phanatics who would do this deal in a heartbeat.
That having been said - no thanks.
The last thing I want to do is trade an overpaid player's contract that expires after this season for an overpaid player's contract that expires in three seasons.
PASS
Fabien Brandy
11-13-05, 01:17 PM
I didn't realize there was a difference in contract, I thought it was the same. I thought they both had the same amount of years and money left on their contracts
The difference between Mussina's contract and Thome's contract is like the difference between lightning and a lightning bug.
GiambiRocks
11-13-05, 04:28 PM
What 1B/DH situation? Someone clue me in, please.
Mattpat11
11-13-05, 04:39 PM
What 1B/DH situation? Someone clue me in, please. Giambi can only play one of them at a given time.
I think we're looking at a middle of the rotation pitcher for the remainder of his contract, who will likely be a tad injury prone and making much more money than his production level.
That being said....I want absolutely no part of Jim Thome. A serious back issue, and a myriad of injuries over the past few years. A guy built on power who has started to break down often. Makes a ton of money, and isn't the slickest glove man.
No way. And considering the Yankee strength of offense......it's a terrible idea.
surge511
11-13-05, 08:29 PM
Mussina is much more valuable to the Yankees than Thome would be. He was hurt for a lot of last year, but has been a great pitcher for many years before, and in his contract year, probably will bounce back and have a big year. Thome has been hurt as well, but appears as if he is going downhill quickly. We need pitching much more than we need hitting - we have more than enough of that.
Plus - consider the two people of equal value to the Yankees. They are aging veterans whose best years are behind them, making the same amount of money. Moose's contract is finished next year. Thome has 3 more years left, and he would be blocking our best prospect's path to the majors. This trade seems like a complete no-brainer to me -- DON"T DO IT.
terminator
11-13-05, 08:30 PM
Is 2006 the last year on Moose's contract, or does he have an option/buyout for 2007?
just-blaze
11-13-05, 09:51 PM
This reminds me of the Appier for Vaughn trade.
I think its intriguing but ..... no.
Fabien Brandy
11-13-05, 10:30 PM
In Mussina and Sheffield the Yankees have two veterans who with good seasons will get an arbitration offer from the Yankees, either going for another year with the Yanks or signing elsewhere for draft picks. Those are good situations that a team wants. Adding a guy like Thome and then praying he retires to get out of his contract is a bad situation that a team doesn't want.
In Mussina and Sheffield the Yankees have two veterans who with good seasons will get an arbitration offer from the Yankees, either going for another year with the Yanks or signing elsewhere for draft picks. Those are good situations that a team wants. Adding a guy like Thome and then praying he retires to get out of his contract is a bad situation that a team doesn't want.
Isn't Mussina's base salary going to be $19M? Offering him arbitration seems kind of unlikely, no? Even if he only gets 80% of that, that's still probably more than someone would pay him for a 2 year contract, let alone 1 year.
Isn't Mussina's base salary going to be $19M? Offering him arbitration seems kind of unlikely, no? Even if he only gets 80% of that, that's still probably more than someone would pay him for a 2 year contract, let alone 1 year.
$17 million (http://mlbcontracts.blogspot.com/2005_01_03_mlbcontracts_archive.html) ($19 including the prorated portion of his signing bonus), but your point still stands.
Fabien Brandy
11-14-05, 06:14 AM
Isn't Mussina's base salary going to be $19M? Offering him arbitration seems kind of unlikely, no? Even if he only gets 80% of that, that's still probably more than someone would pay him for a 2 year contract, let alone 1 year.
I was thinking the paycut rule was 60%, though even that would make it unlikely. Sorry.
Powered by vBulletin™ Version 4.0.7 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
0