View Full Version : The following offers were turned down by Brian Cashman:
Stupid Flanders
11-22-05, 04:35 PM
Apparently the Marlins offers (http://highandtight.blogspot.com/2005/11/gone-fishin.html) to the Yankees (all declined) were as follows:
NYY: Wang + Cano for FLA: Beckett + Lowell
NYY: Wang + Duncan + B prospect for FLA: Beckett + Lowell
NYY: Wang + Cano + Duncan + B prospect for FLA: Beckett + Lowell + Luis Castillo + Juan Pierre
hardrain
11-22-05, 04:37 PM
Well, at least we know Cash is telling the truth when he says he won't trade Cano or Wang.
whalers
11-22-05, 04:38 PM
Apparently the Marlins offers (http://highandtight.blogspot.com/2005/11/gone-fishin.html) to the Yankees (all declined) were as follows:
NYY: Wang + Cano for FLA: Beckett + Lowell
NYY: Wang + Duncan + B prospect for FLA: Beckett + Lowell
NYY: Wang + Cano + Duncan + B prospect for FLA: Beckett + Lowell + Luis Castillo + Juan Pierre
I am glad he turned down all of those. Why the F woudl the Yankees want to pick up lowell?
Yanks Lifer
11-22-05, 04:40 PM
Apparently the Marlins offers (http://highandtight.blogspot.com/2005/11/gone-fishin.html) to the Yankees (all declined) were as follows:
NYY: Wang + Cano for FLA: Beckett + Lowell
NYY: Wang + Duncan + B prospect for FLA: Beckett + Lowell
NYY: Wang + Cano + Duncan + B prospect for FLA: Beckett + Lowell + Luis Castillo + Juan Pierre
I don't mean to cause controversy or doubt you, but I saw these too as newspaper reports. Did Cashman say these were offered?
grabick_luca
11-22-05, 04:41 PM
This is a very spectical article with no legit cited sources and a boatload of quotes. I don't discount any of it, but i still don't think the yankees were even waist deep in a possible trade with the marlins
JeffWeaverFan
11-22-05, 04:43 PM
Apparently the Marlins offers (http://highandtight.blogspot.com/2005/11/gone-fishin.html) to the Yankees (all declined) were as follows:
NYY: Wang + Cano for FLA: Beckett + Lowell
NYY: Wang + Duncan + B prospect for FLA: Beckett + Lowell
NYY: Wang + Cano + Duncan + B prospect for FLA: Beckett + Lowell + Luis Castillo + Juan Pierre
Cashman will not deal our prospects and I'm happy about that.
Good for him. Lowell had no real spot with the Yanks, other than 1B. And he'd be another albatross contract, of which they have too many. If he was included in a deal for Beckett (which I was all for), I didn't want Wang or Cano going the other way.
Wang, Cano, Duncan for Beckett, Castillo, and Delgado? Sure. But M's wouldn't have done anything like that.
Wait, where's this guy getting this information from?
On a completely unrelated sidenote, I could have sworn hardrain's sig was talking about Harry Potter.
I don't think the Yankees were ever close to getting Beckett. And they have been burned with NL guys before (Vasquez, Pavano) so I doubt they went for Beckett.
Especially if the cost is Wang and Cano, and a guy we have no use for. Lowell would be a complete waste in Yankee Stadium. All his drives to left center would be long outs.
YankeePride1967
11-22-05, 04:51 PM
Apparently the Marlins offers (http://highandtight.blogspot.com/2005/11/gone-fishin.html) to the Yankees (all declined) were as follows:
NYY: Wang + Cano for FLA: Beckett + Lowell
NYY: Wang + Duncan + B prospect for FLA: Beckett + Lowell
NYY: Wang + Cano + Duncan + B prospect for FLA: Beckett + Lowell + Luis Castillo + Juan Pierre
IF there is any validity to this, then ... :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
ZYanksRule
11-22-05, 04:52 PM
Good.
Don't trade Cano and Wang. That is not something we want to do. Especially for a decent 2B, a regular CF, and a 3B that we dont need.
Good job Cashman.
ShaneTravis
11-22-05, 04:52 PM
[QUOTE=Stupid Flanders][size=3][color=#000000][color=#000000]Apparently the Marlins offers (http://highandtight.blogspot.com/2005/11/gone-fishin.html) to the Yankees (all declined) were as follows:
NYY: Wang + Cano + Duncan + B prospect for FLA:Beckett + Lowell + Luis Castillo + Juan Pierre
Wow, I quess Brian really is in charge. Big Stein would have grabbed that 4th option.
Beckett + Lowell + Luis Castillo + Juan Pierre---"Warrior, our former minor Warrior, not sure--on the fence on that warrior, speedy warrior we have been missing."
[QUOTE=Stupid Flanders][size=3][color=#000000][color=#000000]Apparently the Marlins offers (http://highandtight.blogspot.com/2005/11/gone-fishin.html) to the Yankees (all declined) were as follows:
NYY: Wang + Cano + Duncan + B prospect for FLA:Beckett + Lowell + Luis Castillo + Juan Pierre
Wow, I quess Brian really is in charge. Big Stein would have grabbed that 4th option.
Beckett + Lowell + Luis Castillo + Juan Pierre---"Warrior, our former minor Warrior, not sure--on the fence on that warrior, speedy warrior we have been missing."
If that is for real I, too, am surprised it was turned down. Happy, but surprised.
njdhockey
11-22-05, 04:56 PM
I am really happy Cashman turned down those trades. A sign that the organization is moving in the right direction.
PerfectCone
11-22-05, 04:58 PM
I read Wang + Cano + Duncan + B for Beckett + Castillo + Pierre
I didn't see Lowell mentioned. Am I the only one who can see the beauty that would have been Pierre and Castillo flying around the bases with the power behind them? Our centerfield issue would have been resolved (I know you all hate Juan) and Castillo is a Gold Glove 2nd basemen, not just decent. Throw in the fact that Beckett is younger and more talented than Wang and I don't understand why this was not done. Apparently, there was a matter of 9 million in extra salary holding this up? After drawing 4 million fans last season, WTF?
yankeefan62
11-22-05, 05:01 PM
what i dont get is why fla would ask top prospects that are major league ready and then trade beckett and lowell to boston for three prospects who have no or minimal exprience. Glad to see Cashman turn it down
Michaels07
11-22-05, 05:04 PM
Cashman is waiting to hear from Cincy on the availability of GriffeyJr.
JeffWeaverFan
11-22-05, 05:05 PM
I read Wang + Cano + Duncan + B for Beckett + Castillo + Pierre
I didn't see Lowell mentioned. Am I the only one who can see the beauty that would have been Pierre and Castillo flying around the bases with the power behind them? Our centerfield issue would have been resolved (I know you all hate Juan) and Castillo is a Gold Glove 2nd basemen, not just decent. Throw in the fact that Beckett is younger and more talented than Wang and I don't understand why this was not done. Apparently, there was a matter of 9 million in extra salary holding this up? After drawing 4 million fans last season, WTF?
If you read that then you read wrong. If you wanted Beckett, you had to take on Lowell. Period.
I read Wang + Cano + Duncan + B for Beckett + Castillo + Pierre
I didn't see Lowell mentioned. Am I the only one who can see the beauty that would have been Pierre and Castillo flying around the bases with the power behind them? Our centerfield issue would have been resolved (I know you all hate Juan) and Castillo is a Gold Glove 2nd basemen, not just decent. Throw in the fact that Beckett is younger and more talented than Wang and I don't understand why this was not done. Apparently, there was a matter of 9 million in extra salary holding this up? After drawing 4 million fans last season, WTF?
There is absolutely no reason for the Marlins to have traded Beckett without dropping Lowell. Beckett makes $2.4 mil next year and produces and Lowell makes $18 mil over 2 yrs and probably does very little. The Marlins had no real desire to trade Beckett, they just wanted to get rid of Lowell and trading Beckett was the only way to get anyone to even think about accepting Lowell's contract.
DeputyFife
11-22-05, 05:12 PM
Apparently the Marlins offers (http://highandtight.blogspot.com/2005/11/gone-fishin.html) to the Yankees (all declined) were as follows:
NYY: Wang + Cano for FLA: Beckett + Lowell
NYY: Wang + Duncan + B prospect for FLA: Beckett + Lowell
NYY: Wang + Cano + Duncan + B prospect for FLA: Beckett + Lowell + Luis Castillo + Juan Pierre
I like number 2 and 3. That's just me. It really pisses me off the Beckett is going to the Red Sox. The only one I don't want to give up is Cano and Castillo could have replace him. Oh well, time to start hating Beckett again.
YankeeStripes
11-22-05, 05:18 PM
NYY: Wang + Duncan + B prospect for FLA:Beckett + Lowell I would have done that in a heartbeat.
Beckett >Wang.
I Love Wang
11-22-05, 05:19 PM
NYY: Wang + Duncan + B prospect for FLA:Beckett + Lowell I would have done that in a heartbeat.
Beckett >Wang.
Beckett>Wang, yes. But to lose Duncan and another prospect while also picking up the disaster that is Mike Lowell and his contract is bad.
We had to give up a major league pitcher but Red Sox had to give up a AA pitcher. That doesn't really seem fair. I'm glad Cashman turned it down.
I can't fathom the reasoning behind turning down that offer for Duncan and Wang knowing Boston was simply going to pick up Beckett if turned down. I know I'm likely in the minority but it seriously upsets me knowing I am going to have to watch Beckett quite possibly blossom in Boston over the next 5 to 6 years rather than trade Wang who already has had SERIOUS shoulder issues with an incredibly low k rate, and Duncan (who I do actually like alot). People are very quick to point out that Lowell was involved in the deal but Lowell could have also easily been moved to first base and offered incredibly good defense, not only that but he is coming off one bad year which no one seemed to be capable of explaining. It's very likely that Lowell can rebound to his historical numbers and Beckett starts fulfilling on his promise. This is not a trade for Randy Johnson who was already 40 years old, this is a deal for a guy who's got some of the best pure stuff in the entire league and months younger than the prized prospect many here are so adamant about keeping.
terminator
11-22-05, 05:31 PM
We had to give up a major league pitcher but Red Sox had to give up a AA pitcher. That doesn't really seem fair. I'm glad Cashman turned it down.
Well the Sox offered a choice among Arroyo, Clement, Wade Miller or Wells - but for some reason, the Marlins started laughing.
The Sox would have loved to give up a starter - unfortunately their starters are not exactly coveted by other teams.
Well the Sox offered a choice among Arroyo, Clement, Wade Miller or Wells - but for some reason, the Marlins started laughing.
The Sox would have loved to give up a starter - unfortunately their starters are not exactly coveted by other teams.
What about Papelbon?
terminator
11-22-05, 05:34 PM
What about Papelbon?
They conveniently left him out. :)
RobertMeacham
11-22-05, 05:35 PM
I can't fathom the reasoning behind turning down that offer for Duncan and Wang knowing Boston was simply going to pick up Beckett if turned down. I know I'm likely in the minority but it seriously upsets me knowing I am going to have to watch Beckett quite possibly blossom in Boston over the next 5 to 6 years rather than trade Wang who already has had SERIOUS shoulder issues with an incredibly low k rate, and Duncan (who I do actually like alot). People are very quick to point out that Lowell was involved in the deal but Lowell could have also easily been moved to first base and offered incredibly good defense, not only that but he is coming off one bad year which no one seemed to be capable of explaining. It's very likely that Lowell can rebound to his historical numbers and Beckett starts fulfilling on his promise. This is not a trade for Randy Johnson who was already 40 years old, this is a deal for a guy who's got some of the best pure stuff in the entire league and months younger than the prized prospect many here are so adamant about keeping.
I'm sure that Javier Vazquez, Carl Pavano and Beckett's questionable mental/emotional stability had something to do with the decision.
Hey, the bright side is that the Yankees were at least in a position to decline on Beckett. It's better than being shutout of the trade market.
They conveniently left him out. :)
So basically the Yankees would be giving up more than the Red Sox.
Dr. Gonzo
11-22-05, 05:36 PM
wang and b level for beckett would have done it for me. They could have thrown in Lowell for some b or c if they wanted to.
SoCal Pinstriper
11-22-05, 05:37 PM
I wouldn't have minded if we feigned interest in one of these proposals. Maybe we could have induced the Sox to cough up a little more than Hanley and Sanchez.
I'm fine that we passed though.
terminator
11-22-05, 05:38 PM
So basically the Yankees would be giving up more than the Red Sox.
Well Wang, Duncan + B prospect is at least comparable to Hanley, Sanchez and Jesus Delgado. You can argue which package is better, but you have to admit the beauty of each package lies in the eyes of the beholder.
Well Wang, Duncan + B prospect is at least comparable to Hanley, Sanchez and Jesus Delgado. You can argue which package is better, but you have to admit the beauty of each package lies in the eyes of the beholder.
Wang you can pencil into the rotation next year for the league minimum. You can't say that for any of the Red Sox prospects.
terminator
11-22-05, 05:42 PM
Wang you can pencil into the rotation next year for the league minimum. You can't say that for any of the Red Sox prospects.
Definitely - value on the field for 2006 no question. But as commodities in a trade? A lot of teams would prefer Hanley+Sanchez over Wang+Duncan. You might argue whether that is the correct approach, but it is what it is. A lot of times with prospects, perception is more important than reality.
DeputyFife
11-22-05, 05:48 PM
Definitely - value on the field for 2006 no question. But as commodities in a trade? A lot of teams would prefer Hanley+Sanchez over Wang+Duncan. You might argue whether that is the correct approach, but it is what it is. A lot of times with prospects, perception is more important than reality.
Either way you slice it the Yankees screwed up or got screwed. If Hanley+Sanchez is a better option then you are saying the Yankees passed up a deal to get Beckett where they would have given up less than the Sox. On the other hand if our package was better then why the discount for the Sox?
Yanknut023
11-22-05, 05:48 PM
I can't fathom the reasoning behind turning down that offer for Duncan and Wang knowing Boston was simply going to pick up Beckett if turned down.
The Yankees have to do what is best for the YANKEES. Problems happen when the Yankees try and out do the sox. Look at Aaron Boone, the Yankees wanted to get Boone because the sox were interested. They gave up a decent chip to get him. We all know now that Claussen was not a very good pitcher however the Yankees could have gotten more for him. But to get back to my point.
Over the past few years the yanks and sox are tyring to out do each other with out really thinking about their team. The sox got a starting pitcher something they needed the yanks need to worry about their needs (CF and bullpen) not and try and out do or prevent the sox for doing what they need to do.
I have no problem trading any Yankee prospect, duncan, Hughes, Cano or Wang but you need to get a great return for that prospect. Josh (9 time DL in 4 years) Beckett and Mike Lowell are not that great a return.
I'm sure that Javier Vazquez, Carl Pavano and Beckett's questionable mental/emotional stability had something to do with the decision.
The difference is that Vazquez and Pavano simply don't have the ability that Beckett does, Vazquez has good stuff but it doesn't begin to compare with that of Josh Beckett's. Not only that, Beckett has already proven himself on the big stage. Pavano in my opinion did not want to be here from the beginning and was pressured into this situation by his family. Beckett has EXACTLY the attitude necessary to thrive in a place like New York. He is unabashed in the confidence he has in himself and at times seems like he's downright cocky, but these are the same things that allowed Clemens to have success over his entire career. I'm sorry but we missed the boat on this one, there was a point in last season where there were whispers we'd never see Wang again and now he's being held on to for dear life when a kid like Beckett is being offered. At the end 2003 had I told this board we'd be in position to trade for him by giving up Wang and Duncan I'd be laughed at.
terminator
11-22-05, 05:54 PM
Either way you slice it the Yankees screwed up or got screwed. If Hanley+Sanchez is a better option then you are saying the Yankees passed up a deal to get Beckett where they would have given up less than the Sox. On the other hand if our package was better then why the discount for the Sox?
Well, I think the option I mentioned is comparable to what the Sox offer. And I think more than the personnel involved on the Yanks' end - Cashman didn't want to take on Lowell's salary. FWIW, if Theo was the GM, I don't think he would have done the deal either. With regards to the pluses and minuses of taking on Lowell's contract - I can see the merits of both sides of the argument.
38Special
11-22-05, 05:57 PM
Could we get a link on this ?
Could we get a link on this ?
It was written in the Daily news this morning. I believe it's the only Yankee article written up, you can check it online.
DeputyFife
11-22-05, 06:02 PM
Well, I think the option I mentioned is comparable to what the Sox offer. And I think more than the personnel involved on the Yanks' end - Cashman didn't want to take on Lowell's salary. FWIW, if Theo was the GM, I don't think he would have done the deal either. With regards to the pluses and minuses of taking on Lowell's contract - I can see the merits of both sides of the argument.
I think they are comparable as well. So we could have given up the same value as the Sox did. Most people feel like the Sox got a steal, would they feel the same if we made the deal? I would. Beckett+Lowell>Wang+Duncan. I understand about Lowell's contract but if the Sox can afford it so can we, like someone else mentioned if Lowell sucks then he was suppose to suck, anything beyond that is a bonus. Theo would have been stupid not to make the trade, the same way I feel about Cashman. Not to dog Cashman but I would have gotten the 25 year old World Series MVP, that's just me.
Could we get a link on this ?
The Daily News article: http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/story/368074p-313213c.html
The scenarios in the blog are a summary of what was reported in the above article.
Sierra Mist
11-22-05, 06:41 PM
Wang and Cano are untouchable per Cashman, of course those deals would be turned down. Plus I dont want Beckett in NY anway, then we'd have to keep watching his parents in the stands on TV.
BeantownYankee
11-22-05, 06:45 PM
Either way you slice it the Yankees screwed up or got screwed. If Hanley+Sanchez is a better option then you are saying the Yankees passed up a deal to get Beckett where they would have given up less than the Sox. On the other hand if our package was better then why the discount for the Sox?
Isn't that the team John Henry owned at one point? Maybe favors are still owed..;)
My view of this situation is this. Yankee fans have become incredibly disappointed with the constant trading of young talent for veteran and many times overhyped players. This philosophy has gone on since the end of the dynasty following the loss to Arizona. It absolutely makes sense. Now many are trying to view this potential deal through the same lens, but I simply don't feel like that's the case. We were not offered a 34 year old pitcher coming off a career year, we were offered a 25 yr old power pitcher who has yet to reach his full potential yet has already been a world series MVP. Granted a lemon was thrown in the mix in the form of Mike Lowell, but what we'd be giving up is a prospect who is weeks older than Beckett and has already suffered injuries far more serious than those of Beckett and is depicted by even the scouts who were highest on him as a future number 3. We would also be including a big time power prospect who can not play defense. I love Eric Duncan, I do not want to be misunderstood. This is not, however, the continuing of the old philosophy of giving up young talent for old veterans past their prime. This is the opportunity to obtain a kid who has the chance to become one of the league's top aces for the next decade and a guy who is coming off one bad year yet still plays gold glove defense as a corner infielder (something we will be looking for at first base this offseason.)
Too much of a good thing is bad, and I fear that this is what is occuring with this organization. The strict emphasis on keeping the few young players we have, I am afraid, may be costing us top-flight YOUNG talent.
Wang you can pencil into the rotation next year for the league minimum. You can't say that for any of the Red Sox prospects.
1. Ramirez is already penciled in as the Marlin's starting shortstop, a position of need for the team since Alex Gonzalez is a free agent and not coming back. Whether or not we agree with the assessment, Ramirez is still seen in some circles as not only a good prospect, but an absolute stud prospect (BA still ranked him the third best prospect in the EL despite what a more performance oriented evaluation might call just an ok year). You don't have to agree with this assessment of Ramirez to acknowledge the possibility that others hold it. If they do, that makes Ramirez quite valuable.
2. Sanchez may very well start in the majors next year. His ZIPs projection in the majors is includes a 3.84 ERA and a K rate over 9.
3. Wang has had a littany of injury problems. The elbow doesn't bother me, as TJ surgery is fairly easy to deal with these days. The shoulder, however, is another thing. Can you really pencil him in?
I Love Wang
11-22-05, 07:30 PM
If Sanchez strikes out more than a hitter per inning in MLB next year, I'll eat my hat.
Thank God for Brian Cashman.
I think they are comparable as well. So we could have given up the same value as the Sox did. Most people feel like the Sox got a steal, would they feel the same if we made the deal? I would. Beckett+Lowell>Wang+Duncan. I understand about Lowell's contract but if the Sox can afford it so can we, like someone else mentioned if Lowell sucks then he was suppose to suck, anything beyond that is a bonus. Theo would have been stupid not to make the trade, the same way I feel about Cashman. Not to dog Cashman but I would have gotten the 25 year old World Series MVP, that's just me.
Because of Beckett's injury history, especially his recent shoulder trouble, he is a risk. The Red Sox are in a better position to take that risk because they still have Paplebon, Delcarmen, Lester, etc. Even if the Yankees were willing to offer a comparable package in terms of players, they are not in the same situation as the Sox. If the Yankees trade Wang, they don't have 2 or 3 other Wangs ready to go if the Beckett risk turns out to be real.
I Love Wang
11-22-05, 07:33 PM
Do the Sox consider Delcarmen an option at SP? Because he didn't start a single game last year.
If Sanchez strikes out more than a hitter per inning in MLB next year, I'll eat my hat.
With a 113 strikeout park factor and not having to face the DH anymore, I wouldn't be that surprised.
Do the Sox consider Delcarmen an option at SP? Because he didn't start a single game last year.
I think they moved him to the pen to address the immediate need, not because of any long term plans. He's behind Lester and Paplebon, but it's still depth.
Murcer'swerebest
11-22-05, 07:40 PM
Wang you can pencil into the rotation next year for the league minimum. You can't say that for any of the Red Sox prospects.
Wang doesn't strike hitters out and the long term success of pitchers who don't strike hitters out is something to worry about. Very very few pitchers do well who strike out 5 or fewer hitters per 9 innings pitched and that's basically where Wang is. Those pitchers need to have good defense behind them. They need to minimize walks. They need to get a lot of GIDP's. They need to cut off the running game and they need to squelch homers. And even if they do all these things, they can get beat simply because the ball's always put in play and sometimes they'll go where the fielders ain't. The margin for error that guys like that have is less than pitchers who strike out lots of guys.
If Wang had the same stats except he was striking out 7 guys per 9 or more he'd be more attractive, especially when he misses time this last season with a shoulder problem.
I Love Wang
11-22-05, 07:53 PM
I think they moved him to the pen to address the immediate need, not because of any long term plans. He's behind Lester and Paplebon, but it's still depth.
I thought they moved him because he was pretty mediocre as a starter.
I Love Wang
11-22-05, 07:55 PM
Wang doesn't strike hitters out and the long term success of pitchers who don't strike hitters out is something to worry about. Very very few pitchers do well who strike out 5 or fewer hitters per 9 innings pitched and that's basically where Wang is. Those pitchers need to have good defense behind them. They need to minimize walks. They need to get a lot of GIDP's. They need to cut off the running game and they need to squelch homers. And even if they do all these things, they can get beat simply because the ball's always put in play and sometimes they'll go where the fielders ain't. The margin for error that guys like that have is less than pitchers who strike out lots of guys.
If Wang had the same stats except he was striking out 7 guys per 9 or more he'd be more attractive, especially when he misses time this last season with a shoulder problem.
The fact that Wang has a G/F ratio that is almost 3 times league average will seriously reduce his BABIP. It will also seriously reduce the number of extra-base hits he gives up. Furthermore, he consistently was around 7 or more k/9ip in the minors, and, given the fact that he has fantastic stuff, I expect that to go up.
Shaun4013
11-22-05, 07:59 PM
If true, terriffic.
swityak11
11-22-05, 08:19 PM
I would've done the Wang + Duncan deal immediately, no questions asked.
I like Wang and Cano but there's no reason for this bullheaded "They're untouchable, don't bother asking." stance. Players like Beckett just don't come on the market at age 25. He is the exact type of player that should make Wang and Cano "touchable".
I Love Wang
11-22-05, 08:24 PM
I would've done the Wang + Duncan deal immediately, no questions asked.
I like Wang and Cano but there's no reason for this bullheaded "They're untouchable, don't bother asking." stance. Players like Beckett just don't come on the market at age 25. He is the exact type of player that should make Wang and Cano "touchable".
That wasn't a deal that was offered. We would have had to throw in an extra prospect, plus take on Lowell's horrendous contract. That would be a terrible deal. And Beckett is overrated.
I would've done the Wang + Duncan deal immediately, no questions asked.
I like Wang and Cano but there's no reason for this bullheaded "They're untouchable, don't bother asking." stance. Players like Beckett just don't come on the market at age 25. He is the exact type of player that should make Wang and Cano "touchable".
The marginal upgrade from Wang to Beckett does not justify creating an additional hole on the team (2B) without addressing the most pressing existing needs (CF & the bullpen).
Add to that the burden of a $16mm contract for a backup 1B/3B and you have the makings of a pretty irresponsible deal.
Yanknut023
11-22-05, 08:44 PM
The difference is that Vazquez and Pavano simply don't have the ability that Beckett does, Vazquez has good stuff but it doesn't begin to compare with that of Josh Beckett's. Not only that, Beckett has already proven himself on the big stage. Pavano in my opinion did not want to be here from the beginning and was pressured into this situation by his family. Beckett has EXACTLY the attitude necessary to thrive in a place like New York. He is unabashed in the confidence he has in himself and at times seems like he's downright cocky, but these are the same things that allowed Clemens to have success over his entire career. I'm sorry but we missed the boat on this one, there was a point in last season where there were whispers we'd never see Wang again and now he's being held on to for dear life when a kid like Beckett is being offered. At the end 2003 had I told this board we'd be in position to trade for him by giving up Wang and Duncan I'd be laughed at.
Beckett may have the attitude to play in NY but what about the DL stints. He has been on the DL 9 times in 4 years. That is a lot. Yes he is a young stud who has had arm trouble.
There is more than just trade Wang for Beckett. The key to the deal was Lowell. What would the Yankees do with Lowell. Last time I checked they had a pretty good third baseman.
Pavano did a pretty good job on the "big" stage in 2003. Also Wang pitched great in September where every game counted and he pitched well in game 2 of the ALDS. Anyway I think that whole thing is a bit overrated anyway.
Chacone pitched very well for the Yanks in September and in 2004 John Lieber who had 0 playoff experience pitched well in the ALCS. So I think that whole notion of playoff experience is a bit overrated
There is a saying I like to use it is: "You are what you are"
Last year I was excited about Pavano and Wright. And when people said they both had injuries in the past I blew it off and said they are different now. When people said Pavano would not pitch well in the AL because he did not strike out as many players I thought it did not matter he will be a Cy Young candidate because he plays for the Yankees.
Same goes for Beckett he is what he is. Beckett is a pitcher who had NEVER started more than 30 games in a season and NEVER pitched 200 innnings in a season. I do not see the sox curing his bad arm and blisters. He is will miss starts and make at least one trip to the DL.
yankeesrule2000
11-22-05, 08:47 PM
I would of done Wang and Duncan for Beckett and Lowell
RhodyYanksFan
11-22-05, 08:53 PM
I like number 2 and 3. That's just me. It really pisses me off the Beckett is going to the Red Sox. The only one I don't want to give up is Cano and Castillo could have replace him. Oh well, time to start hating Beckett again.
What's to love about Beckett? The only time he was ever really good was the 03 playoffs.
DiMaggio5CF
11-22-05, 08:58 PM
I might have taken Wang, Duncan, and B Prospect for Beckett and Lowell.
DeputyFife
11-22-05, 09:17 PM
What's to love about Beckett? The only time he was ever really good was the 03 playoffs.
Well what's to hate? Now that he is a Red Sox yeah, but before, I liked him as a baseball player, except 03 WS.
DeputyFife
11-22-05, 09:18 PM
I might have taken Wang, Duncan, and B Prospect for Beckett and Lowell.
Exactly, I'd give up Wang, I'd have a harder time giving up Cano, and I must be honest I don't know much about Duncan, only what I've read here. But the crazy thing is I never heard much about Cano and Wang until this year.
rightfielder21
11-22-05, 09:19 PM
Good...
buntsalot2
11-22-05, 09:22 PM
nice to see we stop getting ripped off. Ca$h, yo the Man! Maybe now, Damon is the One that would easily counter this move and Sox loss of Manny Dreadlox that will keep them in pergatory for another hundred years. I wasn't for Damon but suddenly I see an epiphany... :D :D :D
RobbiMan
11-22-05, 09:24 PM
Wang you can pencil into the rotation next year for the league minimum. You can't say that for any of the Red Sox prospects.
Sure you can. Pencil Jonathan Papelbon into the #5 spot. As a side note ppa79, I respect your opinion, but do you truly believe your sig? Clippard, Hughes, and Cox haven't even had a cup of coffee in the major leagues and you are saying they are better than Papelbon, Beckett, and Hansen?
jimmykey2
11-22-05, 09:57 PM
While I doubt any of these rumors are true, I just hope Wang NEVER misses 2 months again because he slept on his shoulder wrong.
I Love Wang
11-22-05, 10:13 PM
Sure you can. Pencil Jonathan Papelbon into the #5 spot. As a side note ppa79, I respect your opinion, but do you truly believe your sig? Clippard, Hughes, and Cox haven't even had a cup of coffee in the major leagues and you are saying they are better than Papelbon, Beckett, and Hansen?
I think Clippard and Hughes will both be better than Papelbon. He's not a very high ceiling guy.
I'm shocked by the number of posters here that would trade Wang instead of Cano for Beckett.
MInd you I wouldn't have done the trade either (Thanks Cash), but you ALWAYS trade a fielder/bat before pitching (when everything is equal). You can always find a bat, you can barely find an arm.
DiMaggio5CF
11-22-05, 10:26 PM
I'm shocked by the number of posters here that would trade Wang instead of Cano for Beckett.
MInd you I wouldn't have done the trade either (Thanks Cash), but you ALWAYS trade a fielder/bat before pitching (when everything is equal). You can always find a bat, you can barely find an arm.
Given the straight choice, I'd trade Cano first . . . But where was the option that didn't include Wang?
And trading Cano while keeping Wang would give the Yankees 8 starting pitchers and no second baseman.
Fabien Brandy
11-22-05, 10:27 PM
Wang has already proven himself in the AL and in NY whereas Beckett's cockiness could turn into a problem when the press is nailing him about missing starts over blisters. I can see this as comparable to the 'upgrade' from Ted Lilly to Jeff Weaver. One of the throw-ins (Jason Arnold) in that deal netted Erubiel Durazo for Oakland.
ring403
11-22-05, 10:38 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/23/sports/baseball/23yanks.html
The Yankees passed, just as they have turned down every other proposal teams have made that has included Wang or second baseman Robinson Cano. Wang started Game 2 of the division series as a rookie. Cano, also a rookie, batted .297 and had big hits in October. The Yankees say they will keep them.
General Manager Brian Cashman resisted offers for Cano, Wang and other top prospects at the July 31 trading deadline, and he has maintained that strategy since re-signing with the Yankees last month. That seems to be the consensus throughout the organization, and Cashman is trying to maintain it with more frequent trips to Tampa, Fla., to meet with the Yankees' officials there.
"We've learned over time that when you have pieces that are working here in New York, don't waste your time trying to upgrade something that works," Cashman said yesterday. "Spend your time working on areas that need to be addressed. We're going to embrace the guys we know can thrive in this environment."
DiMaggio5CF
11-22-05, 10:44 PM
Wang has already proven himself in the AL
4.02 ERA in 116.1 career innings. Take it easy, chief.
AMYanks
11-22-05, 10:45 PM
I'm shocked by the number of posters here that would trade Wang instead of Cano for Beckett.
MInd you I wouldn't have done the trade either (Thanks Cash), but you ALWAYS trade a fielder/bat before pitching (when everything is equal). You can always find a bat, you can barely find an arm.
Considering we have plenty of young pitching prospects in the minors that appear to be better than Wang, I'd probably trade Wang first.
Although, I'd prefer to trade neither.
BroadwayBomber55
11-22-05, 10:48 PM
I'm happy that Brian Cashman is not trading away prospects like Duncan, Hughes, Cano, and Wang.
The Yankees could make another run a lot of World Series titles with these guys instead of coin-flip quick fixes. Still, I'm buyin' that Cash is smart enough that the farm system is thin as a potato chip and keeping them in the Yankee organization and I'm sellin' the fact that George Steinbrenner is modifying his image and being patient with the farm hands.
Mangycur
11-22-05, 10:50 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/23/sports/baseball/23yanks.html
"We've learned over time that when you have pieces that are working here in New York, don't waste your time trying to upgrade something that works," Cashman said yesterday. "Spend your time working on areas that need to be addressed. We're going to embrace the guys we know can thrive in this environment."
http://americasoutback.typepad.com/blog/images/brilliant.jpg
Fabien Brandy
11-22-05, 10:52 PM
4.02 ERA in 116.1 career innings. Take it easy, chief.
A 111 ERA+ is fine with me. Beckett's ERA+ was 119 this year; 108 last year.
He may not have enough innings to be 'proven' but his mental approach showed he can handle it here.
BroadwayBomber55
11-22-05, 10:52 PM
Wang has already proven himself in the AL.
Whoa, whoa, whoa. I like to let Chien-Ming Wang improve and keep being solid first before I say that if I were you.
Fabien Brandy
11-22-05, 10:57 PM
Whoa, whoa, whoa. I like to let Chien-Ming Wang improve and keep being solid first before I say that if I were you.
Again, 'proven' might be too strong but 116 innings in the American League is 116 more than Beckett has. Or Pavano had. Or Vazquez had. Or Clement had.
It's a tough transition to predict.
BroadwayBomber55
11-22-05, 11:00 PM
Again, 'proven' might be too strong but 116 innings in the American League is 116 more than Beckett has. Or Pavano had. Or Vazquez had. Or Clement had.
It's a tough transition to predict.
Fair enough, but I just want Wang to keep improving and be a soild contributor to the Yankees championship runs in his career.
BroadwayBomber55
11-22-05, 11:04 PM
I don't need a Yankee team filled with ex All-Stars. I rather have the 1990s Yankees blueprint: a mix of a few all-stars, some role players that know how to deliver and win, and some solid prospects from the farm system who can also chip in success.
porsche986
11-22-05, 11:15 PM
I think Clippard and Hughes will both be better than Papelbon. He's not a very high ceiling guy.
Perhaps you haven't seen or read anything about Papelbon. Papelbon is projected as a front of the rotation guy and has already shown he can picth in the big leagues. Hughes has a very high ceiling, but he is still in A ball, so it's tough to tell what he might turn out to be. I don't think Clippard is close to Papelbon from what I have read. Here is what was said in a chat session on <a href="http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/chat/050928jjc.html">Baseball America</a>
JJ Cooper: Ok, one more Clippard question. And before I go into this, let me explain, I have nothing against Clippard and yes, he is a decent prospect. But on what criteria was Clippard the second best pitcher in the league? Are you basing that on current production in the FSL? If you go by what the manager's saw, they voted Jordan Tata the pitcher of the year. If you go by the numbers, Carlos Villanueva, who also just missed the top 20 had a 0.8 run lower ERA and less hits per inning than Clippard while putting up a near identical strikeout rate. But for this list, we're basing it on future ceiling, combined with likelihood of reaching that ceiling. And with that being the case, the reason that Humber ranked ahead of Clippard is that while Humber is having TJ, he has the chance to be a top of the rotation starter with two and maybe three plus pitches, and yes, he had TJ, but that is an injury that is pretty well defined as having a pretty high success rate for pitchers returning from it.
hellonewman
11-22-05, 11:26 PM
Furthermore, (Wang) consistently was around 7 or more k/9ip in the minors, and, given the fact that he has fantastic stuff, I expect that to go up.This is the point that's too often missed. 2005's low K rate was very possibly an aberration. It's not like he junkballed his way up the ladder.
Dooley Womack
11-23-05, 01:47 AM
Wang and Cano are untouchable per Cashman, of course those deals would be turned down. Plus I dont want Beckett in NY anway, then we'd have to keep watching his parents in the stands on TV.
Yeah who wanted Beckett anyway? He really sucks. Wang is the SAME age as Beckett and we all know that Wang is far, far superior to him and is also a more proven pitcher.
Back to my crack pipe.
Dooley Womack
11-23-05, 01:55 AM
Just a hypothetical (or wet dream).
NYY: Wang + Cano for FLA: Beckett + Lowell
Wang isn't on the same planet as Beckett, and Beckett is actually 2 months younger. Both are injury prone and Wang's injury problems are MUCH worse than Beckett's blisters (I've read that some little-known pitcher named Nolan Ryan overcame blister problems at that age).
Lowell goes to third (he's an above avg defender with a gun for an arm), A-Rod goes back to being the best ss in the game and Jeter goes to center, a position he was born to play. With those players on the field, I wouldn't care if Womack played second, though it will be much easier for the Yanks to replace Cano at 2nd than finding a premier CF (as they are currently trying to do, and I predict with little success considering the dwindling market).
ryanthe13th
11-23-05, 02:32 AM
None of these deals would've worked. The Marlins are desperately trying to dump Lowell for a reason. He's on the downside of his career. I'm not saying that he is going to hit .238 every season, but he isn't going to set the world on fire.
Wang and Cano should definitely stay because of their postseason performance. Not to bash A-Rod, but if he would've caught that simple fly ball, I think Wang would've been pitching in the ALCS. And lets not forget Cano becoming an RBI machine in the ALDS.
I Love Wang
11-23-05, 02:33 AM
Perhaps you haven't seen or read anything about Papelbon. Papelbon is projected as a front of the rotation guy and has already shown he can picth in the big leagues. Hughes has a very high ceiling, but he is still in A ball, so it's tough to tell what he might turn out to be. I don't think Clippard is close to Papelbon from what I have read. Here is what was said in a chat session on Baseball America (http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/chat/050928jjc.html)
I've read plenty about Papelbon. BA can lick my sack, because they make up more nonsense than any scouting service in the world. The fact is, Clippard and Hughes are both three(3!) years ahead of Papelbon in their development. Clippard pitched in the FSL this year at age 20, and his peripherals were, on the whole, a bit better than Papelbon's were in the same league at age 23. Obviously I can't perfectly project what Hughes will turn out to be. You'll note in my post I said "I think Hughes will be better than Papelbon." I do. Hughes has a much higher ceiling than Papelbon, and whoever told you Papelbon is projected as a frontline starter is a liar or an idiot. He'll get his 35th big league inning at age 25, so, while he may turn out to be a solid major leaguer, I don't see him ever being at the front of any rotation that doesn't suck. Clippard, barring any unforseen setbacks, given his career path to this point, should make it to the majors in his age 22 season. Hughes has a shot to be in the majors before his 21st birthday. So, yes, I think they both will be better than Papelbon.
CTSoxFan
11-23-05, 07:34 AM
Well the Sox offered a choice among Arroyo, Clement, Wade Miller or Wells - but for some reason, the Marlins started laughing.
The Sox would have loved to give up a starter - unfortunately their starters are not exactly coveted by other teams.
There's probably a decent market for Arroyo, if the Sox were looking to move him. He's a solid #3 starter still not making terribly serious money. The rest of the guys you list there...eh.
1. Ramirez is already penciled in as the Marlin's starting shortstop, a position of need for the team since Alex Gonzalez is a free agent and not coming back. Whether or not we agree with the assessment, Ramirez is still seen in some circles as not only a good prospect, but an absolute stud prospect (BA still ranked him the third best prospect in the EL despite what a more performance oriented evaluation might call just an ok year). You don't have to agree with this assessment of Ramirez to acknowledge the possibility that others hold it. If they do, that makes Ramirez quite valuable.
What makes you think Ramirez is ready for the majors. He is ready if you want him to hit .200. His AA numbers weren't that great.
CTSoxFan
11-23-05, 07:41 AM
I've read plenty about Papelbon. BA can lick my sack, because they make up more nonsense than any scouting service in the world. The fact is, Clippard and Hughes are both three(3!) years ahead of Papelbon in their development. Clippard pitched in the FSL this year at age 20, and his peripherals were, on the whole, a bit better than Papelbon's were in the same league at age 23. Obviously I can't perfectly project what Hughes will turn out to be. You'll note in my post I said "I think Hughes will be better than Papelbon." I do. Hughes has a much higher ceiling than Papelbon, and whoever told you Papelbon is projected as a frontline starter is a liar or an idiot. He'll get his 35th big league inning at age 25, so, while he may turn out to be a solid major leaguer, I don't see him ever being at the front of any rotation that doesn't suck. Clippard, barring any unforseen setbacks, given his career path to this point, should make it to the majors in his age 22 season. Hughes has a shot to be in the majors before his 21st birthday. So, yes, I think they both will be better than Papelbon.
Clippard and Papelbon are tough to compare, because Papelbon went to college (and actually stayed there). Once Papelbon was drafted, he was in the majors (apparently to stay, though we'll see about that) by his third professional season. There's little to dislike about either guy, and I agree that Clippard is a great pitching prospect, though it's also true that there are plenty of guys who looked lights-out in A ball but couldn't get hitters out in the higher minors or the majors.
And as tough as it is to project Clippard, Hughes is even tougher, with slightly less impressive numbers and a grand total of 92 professional innings spread out over two seasons.
Sure you can. Pencil Jonathan Papelbon into the #5 spot. As a side note ppa79, I respect your opinion, but do you truly believe your sig? Clippard, Hughes, and Cox haven't even had a cup of coffee in the major leagues and you are saying they are better than Papelbon, Beckett, and Hansen?
Did why didn't the Marlins ask for Papelbon? They asked for Wang from us.
On the signature, I'm not debating who is better or who will be better. Its just a statement I made to show support for our own guys. And I don't know who'll be better, we'll find out in a couple of years.
What makes you think Ramirez is ready for the majors. He is ready if you want him to hit .200. His AA numbers weren't that great.
They traded for him to play him by all accounts.
They traded for him to play him by all accounts.
And if he plays he will hit .200. What the point of playing him if he can't hit yet.
CTSoxFan
11-23-05, 07:54 AM
Did why didn't the Marlins ask for Papelbon? They asked for Wang from us.
I imagine the Marlins did ask for Papelbon, but their stated primary target in the trade talks was Hanley Ramirez, and they wanted to get a good young pitcher as well to replace Beckett. I'm assuming Papelbon's name came up, to which the Sox responded that he was unavailable, but here's a list of pitchers that CAN be had... The difference between the Sox and Yankees farm systems at this point is that the best Sox pitching prospects happen to be closer to MLB-ready than the best Yanks pitching prospects, so when the Sox nixed Papelbon, they had alternatives to offer. The Yanks have guys who may well be superior to Anibal Sanchez and/or Jon Lester, but comparing an A-ball pitcher to someone who's been successful in AA or AAA is a hard thing to do. Since the Yanks' top prospects are so much lower at the moment, it's possible that the Marlins opted for the Sox offer based purely on their preference for HanRam and the projectability of Sanchez.
Naturally, since I wasn't in the room, this is just speculation.
CTSoxFan
11-23-05, 07:56 AM
And if he plays he will hit .200. What the point of playing him if he can't hit yet.
Well, the Padres (and subsequently, the Cardinals) took the approach of letting a talented shortstop prospect learn to hit on the major league level. He was an awful hitter for four or five years...but eventually, things turned out OK for Ozzie Smith, no? :)
And if he plays he will hit .200. What the point of playing him if he can't hit yet.
It doesn't really matter. The Marlins have penciled him in. I imagine they don't think he'll be worse than Alex Gonzalez.
I imagine the Marlins did ask for Papelbon, but their stated primary target in the trade talks was Hanley Ramirez, and they wanted to get a good young pitcher as well to replace Beckett. I'm assuming Papelbon's name came up, to which the Sox responded that he was unavailable, but here's a list of pitchers that CAN be had... The difference between the Sox and Yankees farm systems at this point is that the best Sox pitching prospects happen to be closer to MLB-ready than the best Yanks pitching prospects, so when the Sox nixed Papelbon, they had alternatives to offer. The Yanks have guys who may well be superior to Anibal Sanchez and/or Jon Lester, but comparing an A-ball pitcher to someone who's been successful in AA or AAA is a hard thing to do. Since the Yanks' top prospects are so much lower at the moment, it's possible that the Marlins opted for the Sox offer based purely on their preference for HanRam and the projectability of Sanchez.
Naturally, since I wasn't in the room, this is just speculation.
These are some good points.
silverdsl
11-23-05, 08:05 AM
I'm happy that Cashman is refusing to trade Wang and Cano. If he trades those guys I'd like it to be to fill needs that the Yankees have and not to take on players they have no use for like Lowell. And who would play second if the Yankees traded Cano? That would just mean that in addition to finding a centerfielder and a couple of relievers they'd also have to find a second baseman. Beckett is a great pitcher but I'd rather the Yankees focus on areas they need to really need to improve in and not worry about what the Red Sox are doing - if the Yankees address their weaknesses and make the 2006 team as strong as possible they will match up well with any team.
-Deborah
Seamonk
11-23-05, 08:05 AM
If Cashman isn't going to trade Wang or Cano then he should just unplug the phone and not show his face again until pitchers and catchers report.
Those are his only chips.
Yankees1962
11-23-05, 08:09 AM
I'm happy that Cashman is refusing to trade Wang and Cano. If he trades those guys I'd like it to be to fill needs that the Yankees have and not to take on players they have no use for like Lowell. And who would play second if the Yankees traded Cano? That would just mean that in addition to finding a centerfielder and a couple of relievers they'd also have to find a second baseman. Beckett is a great pitcher but I'd rather the Yankees focus on areas they need to really need to improve in and not worry about what the Red Sox are doing - if the Yankees address their weaknesses and make the 2006 team as strong as possible they will match up well with any team.
-Deborah
I wouldn't classify Beckett as a great pitcher just yet!
CTSoxFan
11-23-05, 08:12 AM
If Cashman isn't going to trade Wang or Cano then he should just unplug the phone and not show his face again until pitchers and catchers report.
Those are his only chips.
I wrote something similar in another post, but I agree with this. If he's entering trade talks with any team while flying under the banner of "Cano, Wang, Duncan, Hughes and Clippard are untouchable," then he's in for either a lot of short conversations or a few nothing-for-nothing trades.
But this is quite possibly a very good thing for Yankees fans, since the Yanks probably have the resources to fill current gaps in the FA market and let the talent continue to develop in the minors. It might be a challenge holding the fans (and King George!) at bay, since the really impressive talent is still at least 2-3 seasons away, but if you take a good look at what might be coming, it may well be worth the wait.
(Quick Red Sox aside: I believe that is more or less their current MO as well, but when HanRam had a tough season in AA last year, it raised enough red flags that they were willing to cash in that chip now for the right deal. Hence, Beckett to Boston.)
CTSoxFan
11-23-05, 08:12 AM
I wouldn't classify Beckett as a great pitcher just yet!
Nope...but better than anyone not named "Randy" on the Yankees. And better than anyone not named "Curt" on the Red Sox.
PlsDontTearDownY.S.
11-23-05, 08:17 AM
NYY: Wang + Duncan + B prospect for FLA:Beckett + Lowell I would have done that in a heartbeat.
Beckett >Wang.
But what would we do with Lowell? 2 gold glove 3rd basemen on the same team?
Yankees1962
11-23-05, 08:19 AM
Nope...but better than anyone not named "Randy" on the Yankees. And better than anyone not named "Curt" on the Red Sox.
He had one good year last season, let's see him pitch a complete season first, but I grant you that about your Curt.
I think in the end of the day, it came down to depth and need. The Red Sox depth was a lot more than the Yankee depth. Plus the Yankee's greatest need wasn't starting pitching. The Red Sox could trade away a couple of their chips and still have decent depth (Papelbon, Lester, Hanson, Shoppach) to make another deal. If the Yankees traded away their chips for a something that they desperately didn't need, they would be dead if they had to make another deal to fill a greater need.
CT. No one builds up a farm system to never deal depth. The Twins tried this with all of their outfielders over the past 5 years or so, and have ended up with very little to show for it. Apparently, it was Shipley and Hoyer making this trade, so I don't think that anything about this deal deviates from the base MO.
Nope...but better than anyone not named "Randy" on the Yankees. And better than anyone not named "Curt" on the Red Sox.
At this point, he's better than Curt, even at 170 innings a year.
longtimeyankeefan
11-23-05, 08:27 AM
Apparently the Marlins offers (http://highandtight.blogspot.com/2005/11/gone-fishin.html) to the Yankees (all declined) were as follows:
NYY: Wang + Cano for FLA: Beckett + Lowell
NYY: Wang + Duncan + B prospect for FLA:Beckett + Lowell
NYY: Wang + Cano + Duncan + B prospect for FLA:Beckett + Lowell + Luis Castillo + Juan Pierre
Personally, I am pleased that Cashman turned these various deals down.
Beckett may well be a "stud" as so many people describe him, but he has a big downside IMO - his inability to pitch innings. His season high was his 178.2 IP last season - do we really need to take on another pitcher who is unlikely to make 20% of his starts, thereby putting pressure on our 7th starter (our 6th starter is already dedicated to taking whatever starts RJ, Moose, or Pavano can't make).
In addition, Beckett would be moving from the NL to the AL - we have all seen what has happened to pitchers making that move over the last several seasons. It would not surprise me to find that Beckett has an ERA of 4.40 this coming season, if not greater.
Lowell's contract is an albatross that we do not need - $9M per season for two seasons for a backup 3B/1B/DH:confused: If he did this deal, "you got some 'splainin to do, Brian".
These comments are not to say that the value of Wang + Cano are significantly greater that what the Marlins offered. I just don't see the wisdom of making changes to just make changes. We need to address relief pitching & CF before we start trying deals such as this type deal.
PerfectCone
11-23-05, 08:31 AM
I think everyone on here needs to take off the "we want Yankee prospect to succeed" blinders and face facts. Turning down any trade that included Wang or Cano to get back Josh Beckett makes NO sense. I think Cashman has drank the prospect Kool Aid. Wang is not going to be some great pitcher, people. Cano, he's Soriano with no power. Beckett will be smoking Yankee bats in his pipe for the next 5 seasons.
Yankees1962
11-23-05, 08:34 AM
I think everyone on here needs to take off the "we want Yankee prospect to succeed" blinders and face facts. Turning down any trade that included Wang or Cano to get back Josh Beckett makes NO sense. I think Cashman has drank the prospect Kool Aid. Wang is not going to be some great pitcher, people. Cano, he's Soriano with no power. Beckett will be smoking Yankee bats in his pipe for the next 5 seasons.
You must feel great to be so right about your opinion.
MTYankee23
11-23-05, 08:35 AM
I think what everyone misses here is that this was a deal that the Red Sox should have made, and the Yankees shouldn't have. They can be mutually exclusive. The same thing with the Hansen pick last year. The Red Sox had a slew of extra draft picks, so they could afford to take a close to mlb ready reliever that could have been a tough sign. The Yankees only had 1 pick in the first, so they needed to stick to their overall draft philosophy, contrary to what most NY writers say to get people to buy papers, both teams took the right player.
Dooley Womack
11-23-05, 08:40 AM
I think everyone on here needs to take off the "we want Yankee prospect to succeed" blinders and face facts. Turning down any trade that included Wang or Cano to get back Josh Beckett makes NO sense. I think Cashman has drank the prospect Kool Aid. Wang is not going to be some great pitcher, people. Cano, he's Soriano with no power. Beckett will be smoking Yankee bats in his pipe for the next 5 seasons.
Good, honest post. It's not like the Yanks were giving them up for Pierre. This is a ace-type pitcher who is ONLY 25 we are talking about and Wang and Cano would have been a cheap price to pay. Taking on Lowell wouldn't be awful if that's what it took to get Beckett, who has another 10 great years ahead of him. Lowell at worst can still play a better than average 3rd and could have created interesting opportunities in the infield and bench. He may also rebound from his one bad year.
Some of the same people knocking Beckett are praising Wang, who is the same age and has come nowhere near what Beckett has done and will do. Plus Wang is the greater and more serious injury risk. I don't know what the Yanks are thinking other than to make the claim that they won't give up their youth. Weird, considering Beckett is younger than Wang (by 2 months). If that (not trading youth for BETTER youth) makes some fans happy, so be it.
I think everyone on here needs to take off the "we want Yankee prospect to succeed" blinders and face facts. Turning down any trade that included Wang or Cano to get back Josh Beckett makes NO sense. I think Cashman has drank the prospect Kool Aid. Wang is not going to be some great pitcher, people. Cano, he's Soriano with no power. Beckett will be smoking Yankee bats in his pipe for the next 5 seasons.
It has nothing to do with wanting Yankee prospects to succeed. It has to do with risk and return. Beckett is a risk. The Red Sox have fallback positions in Lester and Paplebon to absorb that risk. The Yankees don't have said fallback option. In addition, the Yankees have positions of greater need...for example, if they do have to trade Wang, they may be better served doing so for a CF. Conversely, with Wells on his way out of town and Schilling a question mark, the Red Sox had a more immediate need at SP.
BTW, the Red Sox only control Beckett for 2 more years, I believe.
PerfectCone
11-23-05, 08:43 AM
I think what everyone misses here is that this was a deal that the Red Sox should have made, and the Yankees shouldn't have. They can be mutually exclusive. The same thing with the Hansen pick last year. The Red Sox had a slew of extra draft picks, so they could afford to take a close to mlb ready reliever that could have been a tough sign. The Yankees only had 1 pick in the first, so they needed to stick to their overall draft philosophy, contrary to what most NY writers say to get people to buy papers, both teams took the right player.
I'm still scratching my head over the fact that they didn't bring up B.J.Cox for the Playoffs last season. With wastes like Proctor out there, he only would have helped the situation. ???
Dooley Womack
11-23-05, 08:46 AM
It has nothing to do with wanting Yankee prospects to succeed. It has to do with risk and return. Beckett is a risk. The Red Sox have fallback positions in Lester and Paplebon to absorb that risk. The Yankees don't have said fallback option. In addition, the Yankees have positions of greater need...for example, if they do have to trade Wang, they may be better served doing so for a CF. Conversely, with Wells on his way out of town and Schilling a question mark, the Red Sox had a more immediate need at SP.
BTW, the Red Sox only control Beckett for 2 more years, I believe.
Why is Beckett a risk? I'd call Wang, and his operated and injured arm an even bigger risk. Beckett missing 3-4 starts a year over blisters is not exactly analogous to having a bad rotator cuff. Nolan Ryan learned to pitch through them and even came up with methods to lessen the pain and impact the blisters had on his pitching.
As for needs, with a 42 y/o RJ, a declining Mussina, an iffy Pavano, a sucky Wright, a Chacon who could revert back to his awful K/BB ratio he's had his whole career and a Wang who is an injury risk (and his one decent year proves little at this point), the Yanks are just as desperate, if not more than the Sox for starting pitching.
PerfectCone
11-23-05, 08:47 AM
It has nothing to do with wanting Yankee prospects to succeed. It has to do with risk and return. Beckett is a risk. The Red Sox have fallback positions in Lester and Paplebon to absorb that risk. The Yankees don't have said fallback option. In addition, the Yankees have positions of greater need...for example, if they do have to trade Wang, they may be better served doing so for a CF. Conversely, with Wells on his way out of town and Schilling a question mark, the Red Sox had a more immediate need at SP.
BTW, the Red Sox only control Beckett for 2 more years, I believe.
Valid points, but I don't think the Sox were thinking this way. They needed to make a splash so that people started to forget the Theo debacle. They were doing this trade. That being said, I think the reward for landing Beckett is better than the risk. The guy has a golden arm and sooner or later he's going to figure it out. I'm pretty sure the Sox will sign the guy to a long term deal if he has a barnburner season this year. Hopefully, the native Texan will hate Boston and high tail it back here! :D
MTYankee23
11-23-05, 08:48 AM
I'm still scratching my head over the fact that they didn't bring up B.J.Cox for the Playoffs last season. With wastes like Proctor out there, he only would have helped the situation. ???
JB Cox? I don't think he was ready, he had pitched a ton of innings for Texas, so they basically shut him down. Patience. Even the great Craig Hansen looked shaky when called up.
Not to mention, Torre's reluctance to use young players. He'd have worn a Yankees uniform for 35 days and thrown the same number of pitches.
I'm still scratching my head over the fact that they didn't bring up B.J.Cox for the Playoffs last season. With wastes like Proctor out there, he only would have helped the situation. ???
College upperclass pitchers tend to get worked and worked hard. When you get down to it, college coaches could really care less about the long term health of their players, as by the time they break down, they've graduated.
Cox pitched 78 innings at Texas in 2005. He pitched an additional 27.2 for the Yankees in A ball. That's 105.2. His career high in innings prior to that was 63.2. Not only was that enough work for Cox to likely start losing effectiveness, but it was also enough work for his arm, period. You do have to take the future into account.
MTYankee23
11-23-05, 08:52 AM
Why is Beckett a risk? I'd call Wang, and his operated and injured arm an even bigger risk. Missing 3-4 starts a year over blisters is not exactly having a bad rotator cuff. Nolan Ryan learned to pitch through them and even came up with methods to lessen the pain and impact the blisters had on his pitching.
As for needs, with a 42 y/o RJ, a declining Mussina, an iffy Pavano, a sucky Wright, a Chacon who could revert back to his awful K/BB ratio he's had his whole carrer and a Wang who is an injury risk (and one year proves nothing), the Yanks are just as desperate if not more than the Sox for pitching.
I wouldn't say Beckett's a risk either, but a good point was made. The Red Sox had the prospect depth in the high minors that the Marlins were looking for, and allegedly the Marlins liked the Red Sox package better than any of the ones we turned down anyhow. With the Yankees looking to cut payroll, "yup, 2 things I never thought I say in my lifetime, Patriots Dynasty and Yanks cut payroll", Taking on Lowell's contract, and trading away all of our cheap young players wouldn't have worked. The Sox had the prospects available, and they got the deal done. Hopefully 2 years down the road when our farm system is replenished and they are at their budget threshold, we'll be making a similar deal for a Johan Santana or Jake Peavy.
PerfectCone
11-23-05, 08:55 AM
Didn't think of the stress factor involved with pitching so deep into the college season. I was just thinking of how nice it would've been to have more than one pitcher out there who could get out of an inning without opening the flood gates. Maybe we'll see him next season. Now that the Yankees appear to be moving in the direction of young players, I wonderr if Torre will be facing pressure from above to let guys play? It should help that Bernie and Tino are gone so we won't have to worry about the loyalty factor.
Why is Beckett a risk? I'd call Wang, and his operated and injured arm an even bigger risk. Beckett missing 3-4 starts a year over blisters is not exactly analogous to having a bad rotator cuff. Nolan Ryan learned to pitch through them and even came up with methods to lessen the pain and impact the blisters had on his pitching.
As for needs, with a 42 y/o RJ, a declining Mussina, an iffy Pavano, a sucky Wright, a Chacon who could revert back to his awful K/BB ratio he's had his whole career and a Wang who is an injury risk (and one year proves nothing), the Yanks are just as desperate, if not more than the Sox for starting pitching.
I didn't say Wang wasn't a risk. I said Beckett was a risk. It doesn't mean they are the same risk, either. Anyway, if Beckett's problems were only the blisters, I wouldn't feel that bad. I'm more worried about him getting shut down this year because of his shoulder. Having never had to carry a full workload because of the blisters, you would think his arm would be a little more sound than that.
In addition, I'm not saying that the Yankees don't have SP needs, just that it isn't as big a need as the hole in CF. The difference between Beckett and Mussina is smaller than the difference between a legit CF and Bubba. The SP may have question marks, but at least they have upside.
Dooley Womack
11-23-05, 08:58 AM
I didn't say Wang wasn't a risk. I said Beckett was a risk. It doesn't mean they are the same risk, either. Anyway, if Beckett's problems were only the blisters, I wouldn't feel that bad. I'm more worried about him getting shut down this year because of his shoulder. Having never had to carry a full workload because of the blisters, you would think his arm would be a little more sound than that.
In addition, I'm not saying that the Yankees don't have SP needs, just that it isn't as big a need as the hole in CF. The difference between Beckett and Mussina is smaller than the difference between a legit CF and Bubba. The SP may have question marks, but at least they have upside.
After re-reading my post it did seem like I was putting words in your mouth, though that wasn't my intent. Sorry. It was more of my own commentary in addition to my response (about risks) to you.
After re-reading my post it did seem like I was putting words in your mouth, though that wasn't my intent. Sorry. It was more of my own commentary in addition to my response (about risks) to you.
No problem.
RhodeyYankee2638
11-23-05, 09:00 AM
In addition, I'm not saying that the Yankees don't have SP needs, just that it isn't as big a need as the hole in CF. The difference between Beckett and Mussina is smaller than the difference between a legit CF and Bubba. The SP may have question marks, but at least they have upside.
well one of those deals would have filled the CF need, SP need and the subsequent 2B problem we would have had. Cant always get what you want I guess
Dooley Womack
11-23-05, 09:02 AM
I didn't say Wang wasn't a risk. I said Beckett was a risk. It doesn't mean they are the same risk, either. Anyway, if Beckett's problems were only the blisters, I wouldn't feel that bad. I'm more worried about him getting shut down this year because of his shoulder. Having never had to carry a full workload because of the blisters, you would think his arm would be a little more sound than that.
In addition, I'm not saying that the Yankees don't have SP needs, just that it isn't as big a need as the hole in CF. The difference between Beckett and Mussina is smaller than the difference between a legit CF and Bubba. The SP may have question marks, but at least they have upside.
How would you feel about the hypothetical situation I brought up earlier? If the Yanks dealt Cano and Wang for Beckett and Lowell, they could have put Lowell on 3rd, A-Rod back to short and my wish of putting Jeter in CF could have become a reality (yeah, I know it's a stretch). 2nd base would be much easier to fill than CF; at worst, Womack, or a trade for a serviceable 2nd baseman...who knows, maybe even Soriano.
well one of those deals would have filled the CF need, SP need and the subsequent 2B problem we would have had. Cant always get what you want I guess
It would have locked the Yankees into a CF they don't really want and been a wash at 2b moving forward for more money and fewer years, but beyond that, sure, it was a great deal.
RhodeyYankee2638
11-23-05, 09:05 AM
It would have locked the Yankees into a CF they don't really want and been a wash at 2b moving forward for more money and fewer years, but beyond that, sure, it was a great deal.
We dont want Pierre, but its going to be expensive to get any other CF'er, even Wilkerson who I would love to have. At least in this deal, while costing prospects, would have landed us a better pitcher and decent 2B, and a possible trading chip in Lowell
How would you feel about the hypothetical situation I brought up earlier? If the Yanks dealt Cano and Wang for Beckett and Lowell, they could have put Lowell on 3rd, A-Rod back to short and my wish of putting Jeter in CF could have become a reality (yeah, I know it's a stretch). 2nd base would be much easier to fill than CF; at worst, Womack, or a trade for a serviceable 2nd baseman...who knows, maybe even Soriano.
There's no indication that the Marlins wanted Cano and Wang more than they wanted the package they got, it seems very hypothetical. What are you going to offer to outbid the Red Sox, not underbid them?
If the Yankees are going to play Womack, they might as well play Bubba. If the Yankees are going to trade for Soriano (though now that they've traded Cano and Wang, what do they have to trade for Soriano), they might as well trade for a CF. If the Yankees want to move Jeter to CF, they might as well sign Furcal to play short.
Michael Corleone: Your enemies always get strong on what you leave behind.
How will Steinbrenner respond to the Red Sox acquiring a new fresh prince of pitching? I stumbled upon "Godfather III" the other night and thought about Steinbrenner in the following scene: (note: I see Steinbrenner in the Andy Garcia role of the hot-tempered, ear-biting VIncent Mancini. The Red Sox are his hated enemy, Joey Zasa. Pacino, as always, is Mikey Corleone.)
Vincent Mancini : [in the helicopter] I'd like to take Joey Zasa up in one of these and drop him.
Michael Corleone : Joey Zasa is nothing. He's a small-time enforcer. He bluffs, threats, but nothing. You can see him coming a mile away.
Vincent Mancini : We should kill him before he kills ...
Michael Corleone: No! Never hate your enemies. It affects your judgment.
How the heck does this scene apply to the Yanks? Well, if Vincent Mancini was the Yanks GM this morning, his first move would be to make Boston free agent Johnny Damon the Yankees next centerfielder/leadoff hitter. Forget about the insane money for a minute, forget that Damon's spaghetti arm would look even more "angel hair-esque" at Yankee Stadium, and remember this: Johnny Damon is a god in Boston. He's right up there with Schilling and Ortiz. Bringing Damon to the Bronx - clipping his hair, shaving off his beard, and making him a 'damn Yankee!' - would drive a stake into the heart of the Red Sox frontoffice. The backpage headlines in New York, "Heeeere's Johnny!" would rock "Red Sox Nation" like a tsunami. Oh, no doubt, it would be the kind of instant gratification and sadistic revenge that would make Vincent Mancini's day. It would be an act of hate against the enemy, plus, in some respects, the Yankees would get stronger on what their enemy left behind.
But considering Damon's demands, and that the Yanks are trying to move in a different direction, I think Michael Corleone would question the judgment of a Yankee GM who would bring Damon to the Yankees now and advise against it.
We dont want Pierre, but its going to be expensive to get any other CF'er, even Wilkerson who I would love to have. At least in this deal, while costing prospects, would have landed us a better pitcher and decent 2B, and a possible trading chip in Lowell
1. Lowell isn't a trading chip. He's an albatross.
2. If the Yankees are willing to part with Cano, Wang, and Duncan, as you are suggesting, I'm guessing a CF wouldn't be a problem (though I see no evidence that a guy that the Nationals want to bench is 'expensive').
The Dynasty
11-23-05, 09:11 AM
1. Lowell isn't a trading chip. He's an albatross.
2. If the Yankees are willing to part with Cano, Wang, and Duncan, as you are suggesting, I'm guessing a CF wouldn't be a problem (though I see no evidence that a guy that the Nationals want to bench is 'expensive').
Who do you think would NET the most return (what we have to give up and what we get in return): Bradley or Wilkerson? Just wondering what people think. I think MB would come cheap, and would be well worth the risk.
RhodeyYankee2638
11-23-05, 09:12 AM
1. Lowell isn't a trading chip. He's an albatross.
2. If the Yankees are willing to part with Cano, Wang, and Duncan, as you are suggesting, I'm guessing a CF wouldn't be a problem (though I see no evidence that a guy that the Nationals want to bench is 'expensive').
If the Yanks wanted to burn money off Lowell's contract, we coould get something in return
The problem with trading Cano, Wang or Duncan, or any combination of those for a CF would mean that you have yeat another hole to fill (at 2nd, or SP, unless you want Wright starting). I like Wilkerson, but don't be surprised if they ask for Wang and Cano when we come calling.
Who do you think would NET the most return (what we have to give up and what we get in return): Bradley or Wilkerson? Just wondering what people think. I think MB would come cheap, and would be well worth the risk.
I'd wait to see if Bradley is non-tendered before I even called. Even if he isn't, the asking price is going to change once the deadline passes. I'd guess the Wilkerson asking price is more likely to stay the same, but I don't think it will be that silly.
NelsonMuntz
11-23-05, 09:16 AM
Here's an idea, why don't we ASK the Nationals what they want for Wilkerson? Granted I'm not privy to every conversation that Cashman has with other GM's, but there has not been any indication that the Yankees have even inquired about Wilkerson, who by all accounts is very much available.
The Dynasty
11-23-05, 09:18 AM
Here's an idea, why don't we ASK the Nationals what they want for Wilkerson? Granted I'm not privy to every conversation that Cashman has with other GM's, but there has not been any indication that the Yankees have even inquired about Wilkerson, who by all accounts is very much available.
I don't think Wilkerson is going anywhere anytime soon. I think as much as reports are saying the Yanks want no part of MB, if he's non-tendered, I guarantee we go hard after him. Too much upside to let that go. I see Chacon written all over it.
MB>Wilkerson
RhodeyYankee2638
11-23-05, 09:18 AM
Here's an idea, why don't we ASK the Nationals what they want for Wilkerson? Granted I'm not privy to every conversation that Cashman has with other GM's, but there has not been any indication that the Yankees have even inquired about Wilkerson, who by all accounts is very much available.
I agree, I hope Cashman asks. They want young cheap talent. I dont think they'd ask for a Wright, or Womack though
If the Yanks wanted to burn money off Lowell's contract, we coould get something in return
The problem with trading Cano, Wang or Duncan, or any combination of those for a CF would mean that you have yeat another hole to fill (at 2nd, or SP, unless you want Wright starting). I like Wilkerson, but don't be surprised if they ask for Wang and Cano when we come calling.
The Nationals don't want Wikerson to be in the starting lineup. Everyone knows this. He's coming off a down year. Everyone knows this. It seems more likely he'll be traded for someone elses problem.
As for eating money to trade Lowell, would you sign a draft pick for $9m? Would you pay Kyle Lohse $12M a year?
The Dynasty
11-23-05, 09:20 AM
As for eating money to trade Lowell, would you sign a draft pick for $9m? Would you pay Kyle Lohse $12M a year?
Great analogy.
The GM network is very fluid, and Cashman has always been reported to have constant contact with most of the league. I'm pretty sure the Yanks have an idea as to who is currently available, and at least a general sense of the cost. Instances like the Marlins deciding almost overnight to package the whole team changes the landscape a bit, but during this time period most GM's or assistants speak with a slew of other clubs every day.
Here's an idea, why don't we ASK the Nationals what they want for Wilkerson? Granted I'm not privy to every conversation that Cashman has with other GM's, but there has not been any indication that the Yankees have even inquired about Wilkerson, who by all accounts is very much available.
Because there's no reason to show interest in Wilkerson until after the tender/non-tender deadline either. He made $3M last year. He's arbitration eligible. The Nationals don't see him in their starting lineup. There's a good chance he doesn't get offered a contract at all. Make the Nationals make a decision.
I thin the Bradley situation is more fluid due to outside circumstances, but in general, the overall approach should be the same.
RhodeyYankee2638
11-23-05, 09:22 AM
The Nationals don't want Wikerson to be in the starting lineup. Everyone knows this. He's coming off a down year. Everyone knows this. It seems more likely he'll be traded for someone elses problem.
As for eating money to trade Lowell, would you sign a draft pick for $9m? Would you pay Kyle Lohse $12M a year?
Traded for someone else problem, eh? Should have traded Lowell for him
If the Nationals asked for Wang OR Cano for Wilkerson, I'd say no. Wilkerson is a good player- but young pitching that has had a taste of success already in the majors and a young 2B with tons of potential and a live bat and one season of success already in the majors should net more than Brad Wilkerson.
Don't get me wrong- I'd love to grab the guy. But either of those two would be overpaying, IMO.
The Dynasty
11-23-05, 09:24 AM
Because there's no reason to show interest in Wilkerson until after the tender/non-tender deadline either. He made $3M last year. He's arbitration eligible. The Nationals don't see him in their starting lineup. There's a good chance he doesn't get offered a contract at all. Make the Nationals make a decision.
Exactly. Cash knows exactly what he's doing. Let the Mets and the Sox throw $$$ and top prospects at their holes. We may very well be able to solve our problems by finding gems that are non-tendered...and THEN we can throw $$$ at BJ Ryan :D (sorry I love the kid)
Because there's no reason to show interest in Wilkerson until after the tender/non-tender deadline either. He made $3M last year. He's arbitration eligible. The Nationals don't see him in their starting lineup. There's a good chance he doesn't get offered a contract at all. Make the Nationals make a decision.
Wilkerson? I'd say there is little chance he isn't offered a contract. He may become too expensive, but he has value. Even with arbitration $.
Though I do agree it doesn't cost anything to wait and see...
The GM network is very fluid, and Cashman has always been reported to have constant contact with most of the league. I'm pretty sure the Yanks have an idea as to who is currently available, and at least a general sense of the cost. Instances like the Marlins deciding almost overnight to package the whole team changes the landscape a bit, but during this time period most GM's or assistants speak with a slew of other clubs every day.
Agree.
All the GMs know what others are offering for certain players. Texas did not up the ante for Beckett, because they felt their offer was better than Bostons, not because Boston came out of now-where.
Cashman knows what's going on out there, and what is available, and who is after whom.
He will do what needs to be done. Enough of this "eye-for-an-eye" stuff, trying to keep up with the Jones'
RhodeyYankee2638
11-23-05, 09:26 AM
If the Nationals asked for Wang OR Cano for Wilkerson, I'd say no. Wilkerson is a good player- but young pitching that has had a taste of success already in the majors and a young 2B with tons of potential and a live bat and one season of success already in the majors should net more than Brad Wilkerson.
Don't get me wrong- I'd love to grab the guy. But either of those two would be overpaying, IMO.
Agreed. I like Wilkerson, but not that much. I think Wang will be a more productive maor league player than Cano, but I also think Cano will be a better player than WIlkerson, so we'd be getting the short end either way
Wilkerson? I'd say there is little chance he isn't offered a contract. He may become too expensive, but he has value. Even with arbitration $.
I find it highly unlikely that the have the budget to pay someone $4M or so to sit on the bench. I'd say it's at least a question you make them ask themselves.
The Dynasty
11-23-05, 09:31 AM
I find it highly unlikely that the have the budget to pay someone $4M or so to sit on the bench. I'd say it's at least a question you make them ask themselves.
MB > Wilkerson, IMHO--I'd rather wait and see how his situation works out first.
I find it highly unlikely that the have the budget to pay someone $4M or so to sit on the bench. I'd say it's at least a question you make them ask themselves.
That's true, but with the knowledge they could receive talent in return for Wilkerson, it doesn't seem they would non-tender.
For example, they could call Cash right now- or even after they offer Wilkerson a contract- and ask for Sean Henn straight up for Wilkerson and get an immediate yes. Or Melky Cabrera. So the fact that they could get a B-level prospect (or more) for Wilkerson from a team like the Yanks would seem to force their hand in offering the contract.
Again, that being said, it behooves the Yanks to wait and see what happens.
That's true, but with the knowledge they could receive talent in return for Wilkerson, it doesn't seem they would non-tender.
For example, they could call Cash right now- or even after they offer Wilkerson a contract- and ask for Sean Henn straight up for Wilkerson and get an immediate yes. Or Melky Cabrera. So the fact that they could get a B-level prospect (or more) for Wilkerson from a team like the Yanks would seem to force their hand in offering the contract.
Again, that being said, it behooves the Yanks to wait and see what happens.
Yup. Because whatever the Nationals want now, if they tender him but don't want him, the price goes down. If they tender him but want him, the price stays the same.
The Dynasty
11-23-05, 09:39 AM
As you guys touched on, Cashman is playing the game correctly right now. If he waits past the non-tender deadline, it is highly likely that he can have an outfield looking like this:
LF:Matsui -- CF:Wilkerson/Bradley -- RF:Giles
I :drool: when I think about the positive impact that'll have on our pitching staff's ERA.
Saxmania
11-23-05, 09:40 AM
well one of those deals would have filled the CF need, SP need and the subsequent 2B problem we would have had. Cant always get what you want I guess
I'm intrigued by the now-extinct possibility of trading for Beckett and Castillo and then spinning off Pierre somewhere else to some dumber team for prospects, while acquiring a CF either through FA (Giles) or trade (Rowand, Wilkerson, Bradley). It would have been a win-at-all-costs strategy that might actually have worked, while retaining what little strength we have in minor-league pitching. If the Yankees are determined to wring one more year of World Series competitiveness out of their roster, that's the way I'd have gone. Castillo isn't great, but does improve the defense a lot.
Not making that trade sends a signal I like about the Yankees' future, but I think in the light of an all-out strategy, one of the potential Marlins trades might have worked out okay. We might just have had to really rebuild (Mets-style) instead of reload (Atlanta-style) in future years.
Be seeing you,
Saxmania
The Dynasty
11-23-05, 09:43 AM
If the Yanks can land the following (somehow someway):
Ryan
Wilkerson/Bradley
Giles
...everything else'd be gravy. We will be the favorites to win it all for a long time down the line.
Perhaps you haven't seen or read anything about Papelbon. Papelbon is projected as a front of the rotation guy and has already shown he can picth in the big leagues. Hughes has a very high ceiling, but he is still in A ball, so it's tough to tell what he might turn out to be. I don't think Clippard is close to Papelbon from what I have read. Here is what was said in a chat session on Baseball America (http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/chat/050928jjc.html)
People on this board need to learn to NOT rely on BA's assessment of our prospects. Read John Sickels for unbiased Yankee scouting.
Who ever said Cano is Soriano with no power needs to put down the drugs.
JeterRodriguezSheff
11-23-05, 09:51 AM
4.02 ERA in 116.1 career innings. Take it easy, chief.
theres a decent chance that 4.02 era might be around what Beckett's era is this year after moving from the NL to AL and out of a pitchers dream i can see his era going from mid 3s to low 4s high 3s
People on this board need to learn to NOT rely on BA's assessment of our prospects. Read John Sickels for unbiased Yankee scouting.
To follow up on that:
From John Sickels
http://www.minorleagueball.com/story/2005/9/21/1402/01147
I've received several questions about Tyler Clippard lately, so he seems like a good pick to write up. Clippard made 25 starts for Tampa in the Florida State League, going 10-9, 3.18, with a 169/34 K/BB in 147 innings. He allowed just 118 hits, giving him an excellent ratio set: his K/IP, K/BB, and H/IP marks are all quite strong. A ninth round pick in 2003 out of high school in Florida, Clippard features a decent fastball at 88-90 MPH, but has a plus curveball and an improving changeup. He has good command and control within the strike zone, and now has two solid A-ball seasons under his belt. He will make the Double-A transition in '06, and I am optimistic about his chances to pass it with flying colors. Yankees fans should be happy about his development, and fantasy owners in deep leagues should see him as a good investment (as far as young pitchers go). He isn't a Felix Hernandez type, but looks to me like a good B+ style prospect.
B+! That's pretty damn good.
theres a decent chance that 4.02 era might be around what Beckett's era is this year after moving from the NL to AL and out of a pitchers dream i can see his era going from mid 3s to low 4s high 3s
If I'm not mistaken, Beckett had a 4.30 ERA on the road last year no?
To follow up on that:
From John Sickels
http://www.minorleagueball.com/story/2005/9/21/1402/01147
B+! That's pretty damn good.
Plus, I've heard he 6'4" and pencil thin. Wait until he fills himself out. He'll probably add a couple of more mph on his fastball.
If I'm not mistaken, Beckett had a 4.30 ERA on the road last year no?Yep. You are not mistaken.
JeterRodriguezSheff
11-23-05, 10:03 AM
Nope...but better than anyone not named "Randy" on the Yankees. And better than anyone not named "Curt" on the Red Sox.
Beckett is the best starter on the sox staff imo, Curt will never be what he once was
Beckett is the best starter on the sox staff imo, Curt will never be what he once was
No, I think Curt's still fat and talking.
Yep. You are not mistaken.
I can't wait to see him in the AL east :D.
Kulish29
11-23-05, 10:33 AM
Traded for someone else problem, eh? Should have traded Lowell for him
Where would the Nats put Lowell? They traded Castilla so they could start the guy they drafted this year. Sure, they could've taken Lowell for insurance incase that kid isnt ready. But there are other more inexpensive options for them to choose from if they want that.
yankswn23
11-23-05, 10:39 AM
I think Beckett is going to hate Fenway..and the rest of the other AL parks, the first time we saw him in the World Series in 03 he did good against us, lets see how well he does when we get to see him a few more times..
CTSoxFan
11-23-05, 10:43 AM
He had one good year last season, let's see him pitch a complete season first, but I grant you that about your Curt.
I'm curious...which current Yankee pitchers would you slot ahead of Beckett? A healthy (read: two years ago) version of Mike Mussina, which hasn't existed since '03...I can't imagine who else.
How would you feel about the hypothetical situation I brought up earlier? If the Yanks dealt Cano and Wang for Beckett and Lowell, they could have put Lowell on 3rd, A-Rod back to short and my wish of putting Jeter in CF could have become a reality (yeah, I know it's a stretch). 2nd base would be much easier to fill than CF; at worst, Womack, or a trade for a serviceable 2nd baseman...who knows, maybe even Soriano.
Lowell at third, A-Rod at short, Jeter in center...wow. That would be a tantalizing defensive array. So good it would even withstand if Lowell's offense never came back.
CTSoxFan
11-23-05, 10:45 AM
No, I think Curt's still fat and talking.
Come on, Sammy...you're better than fat jokes.
NelsonMuntz
11-23-05, 10:52 AM
Because there's no reason to show interest in Wilkerson until after the tender/non-tender deadline either. He made $3M last year. He's arbitration eligible. The Nationals don't see him in their starting lineup. There's a good chance he doesn't get offered a contract at all. Make the Nationals make a decision.
I thin the Bradley situation is more fluid due to outside circumstances, but in general, the overall approach should be the same.
Thanks. That makes me feel a little better about the inactivity thus far.
Come on, Sammy...you're better than fat jokes.
Whatever gave you that idea? :p No, he's not.
Yankees1962
11-23-05, 10:53 AM
I think Beckett is going to hate Fenway..and the rest of the other AL parks, the first time we saw him in the World Series in 03 he did good against us, lets see how well he does when we get to see him a few more times..
Yup! Also, the Yankees only have Jeter, Posada, Giambi and Matsui left from that team so he's going to face a very different lineup.
NelsonMuntz
11-23-05, 10:54 AM
No, I think Curt's still fat and talking.
I was on a conference call when I read this and had to bite my tonuge to keep from laughing out loud into the phone.
I'm curious...which current Yankee pitchers would you slot ahead of Beckett?
Besides Johnson? That's not as easy a question as it sounds given that ZIPs only thinks he's good for about 160 innings.
Thanks. That makes me feel a little better about the inactivity thus far.
No problem. Look, Wilkerson is already getting trashed by anonymous front office sources on the nats. I think it's very likely he's on his way out the door.
Dooley Womack
11-23-05, 11:01 AM
I can't wait to see him in the AL east :D.
Right now, Josh Beckett is the best pitcher on the Sox staff - a 25 year old Schilling if you will, and better than any Yankee pitcher with the possible exception of RJ who is 17 years older.
Don't get your hopes up too high of him failing in Boston, Sam.
Dooley Womack
11-23-05, 11:02 AM
Lowell at third, A-Rod at short, Jeter in center...wow. That would be a tantalizing defensive array. So good it would even withstand if Lowell's offense never came back.
If the Yanks had the ability to think out of the box, that could have been a reality. 1-0 the GM-less Boston Red Sox, thus far.
Wang's Groundballs
11-23-05, 11:04 AM
No problem. Look, Wilkerson is already getting trashed by anonymous front office sources on the nats. I think it's very likely he's on his way out the door.
Very, very good news.
Have you heard anything about the Reds still looking to move Kearns? I've ran the numbers for NL RFers from 2002 on and every single year Kearns came out as the best defensive RF. If he can be acquired for a reasonable price I think he'll be a great addition, especially since there's still a chance, albeit slight, that he reverts back to his 2002 offensive form.
Wang's Groundballs
11-23-05, 11:05 AM
If the Yanks had the ability to think out of the box, that could have been a reality. 1-0 the GM-less Boston Red Sox, thus far.
Lowell is a bad defender and is done at the plate. It's not just 1 year; he's been sucking since the all star break of 2004. The scouts all say his swing looks pathetic, too. I would love to have Beckett, but not at what it would have cost.
Right now, Josh Beckett is the best pitcher on the Sox staff - a 25 year old Schilling if you will, and better than any Yankee pitcher with the possible exception of RJ who is 17 years older.
Don't get your hopes up too high of him failing in Boston, Sam.
He's better than Schilling because of the Schilling question marks. I don't think he projects as a 26 year old version of 2004 Schilling, though...more like the 2004 Schilling with 60 less innings and an ERA a half run higher.
BeantownYankee
11-23-05, 11:07 AM
Right now, Josh Beckett is the best pitcher on the Sox staff - a 25 year old Schilling if you will, and better than any Yankee pitcher with the possible exception of RJ who is 17 years older.
Don't get your hopes up too high of him failing in Boston, Sam.
Schilling wasn't that great when he was 25 ...
Lowell is a bad defender and is done at the plate. It's not just 1 year; he's been sucking since the all star break of 2004. The scouts all say his swing looks pathetic, too. I would love to have Beckett, but not at what it would have cost.
If the Yankees get over the hump where they would be willing to move Jeter to center, there are a lot better ways to do it than by putting Lowell at third and AROD back at short. At this point, they should just leave AROD where he is and get a SS if that's what they want to do.
Wang's Groundballs
11-23-05, 11:09 AM
Schilling wasn't that great when he was 25 ...
He pitched 226.3 innings with an ERA of 2.35 at age 25.
Dooley Womack
11-23-05, 11:09 AM
He's better than Schilling because of the Schilling question marks. I don't think he projects as a 26 year old version of 2004 Schilling, though...more like the 2004 Schilling with 60 less innings and an ERA a half run higher.
That's what I meant. Schilling has a long road ahead, so unless he comes back to Schilling of old, Beckett is the best Sox pitcher.
A 26 year old Beckett has similar stuff of a 26 year old Schilling. I'm not sure if you can compare their numbers in different eras and come up with a fair assessment, but the potential is sure there at such a young age.
I agree that the biggest question mark is his inability to stay off the DL list.
He pitched 226.3 innings with an ERA of 2.35 at age 25.
Yeah, but is that really classified as great?
Wang's Groundballs
11-23-05, 11:12 AM
If the Yankees get over the hump where they would be willing to move Jeter to center, there are a lot better ways to do it than by putting Lowell at third and AROD back at short. At this point, they should just leave AROD where he is and get a SS if that's what they want to do.
I'm not even sure that moving Jeter to CF is the best option at this point, even if we were interested in say...Furcal.
At least according to ZR Jeter was above average in 2004 and exactly average in 2005 while A-Rod was way above average in 2004 and way below average in 2005.
If we don't get Giles my hope is we trade for Kearns and either sign -- if he's non-tendered -- or trade for Wilkerson. Our defense at CF would improve at least by 15 runs and over 25 in RF. This would also allow Sheff to stay healthier and hopefully have a better year with the bat. Like you, I also would like him to learn 1B so Giambi can DH as well. Also, the production of Kearns and Wilkerson with the bat would be much greater than what we got from Bernie, Woe, and Sierra.
Schilling wasn't that great when he was 25 ...
Actually, he had a fabulous season at 25-
14-11, 2.35 226 innings, 165 hits, 59bb 147k, .201 BAA and only 11 HR
He had a decent to good following year, then got hurt for much of the next three seasons before developing into the 97-04 Schilling.
I initially thought Schilling would be a good comparison- someone who came up and showed a great arm and tons of promise....but then saw that Schilling actually pitched extremely well whenever he was healthy. Got hurt big time, but was a horse after that.
You can draw a little comparison, but not much. Schilling pitched more inninings and generally more effective innings, than Beckett early in his career. That being said, Schilling reached the majors at an age where Beckett already had significant ML service.
That's what I meant. Schilling has a long road ahead, so unless he comes back to Schilling of old, Beckett is the best Sox pitcher.
A 26 year old Beckett has the stuff (or at least similar) of a 26 year old Schilling. I'm not sure you can compare their numbers in different eras and come up with a fair assessment.
I agree that the biggest question mark is his inability to stay off the DL list.
If it's your contention that Beckett will put up a 100 and a 96 ERA+ and blow his arm out at ages 26 and 27, I'm pretty sure Yankee fans would be happy. But yeah, Beckett has upside. The reality, though, is a good pitcher who isn't as valuable as either Schilling or Pedro in 2004.
Actually, he had a fabulous season at 25-
14-11, 2.35 226 innings, 165 hits, 59bb 147k, .201 BAA and only 11 HR
He had a decent to good following year, then got hurt for much of the next three seasons before developing into the 97-04 Schilling.
I initially thought Schilling would be a good comparison- someone who came up and showed a great arm and tons of promise....but then saw that Schilling actually pitched extremely well whenever he was healthy. Got hurt big time, but was a horse after that.
You can draw a little comparison, but not much. Schilling pitched more inninings and generally more effective innings, than Beckett early in his career. That being said, Schilling reached the majors at an age where Beckett already had significant ML service.
I'll give you fabulous. I'm still not buying - great.
I'm not even sure that moving Jeter to CF is the best option at this point, even if we were interested in say...Furcal.
At least according to ZR Jeter was above average in 2004 and exactly average in 2005 while A-Rod was way above average in 2004 and way below average in 2005.
If we don't get Giles my hope is we trade for Kearns and either sign -- if he's non-tendered -- or trade for Wilkerson. Our defense at CF would improve at least by 15 runs and over 25 in RF. This would also allow Sheff to stay healthier and hopefully have a better year with the bat. Like you, I also would like him to learn 1B so Giambi can DH as well. Also, the production of Kearns and Wilkerson with the bat would be much greater than what we got from Bernie, Woe, and Sierra.
I was merely responding to the post where Jeter was moved to center so Lowell could play third. If the Yankees make up their mind to move Jeter, they can do a better than the Lowell scenario. This has to do not only with Jeter, but also with moving AROD off of third, where he is probably better suited now.
As for Jeter's 2004 and 2005, I believe UZR thought he was dead average in 2004 and back down to -15 or so in 2005.
whalers
11-23-05, 11:19 AM
But yeah, Beckett has upside. The reality, though, is a good pitcher who isn't as valuable as either Schilling or Pedro in 2004.
This is how I look at it as well. The sox pitching still is worse than it was in 2004. As a Yankee fan I look at the 2004 sox rotation as the best the Yankees have had to deal with in recent memory and use it as a measuring stick. Put in my skepticism about Beckett (he smells of the next Vasquez, Clement, Pavano) I am not too worried about the sox next year.
Wang's Groundballs
11-23-05, 11:20 AM
I was merely responding to the post where Jeter was moved to center so Lowell could play third. If the Yankees make up their mind to move Jeter, they can do a better than the Lowell scenario. This has to do not only with Jeter, but also with moving AROD off of third, where he is probably better suited now.
As for Jeter's 2004 and 2005, I believe UZR thought he was dead average in 2004 and back down to -15 or so in 2005.
Ahhh, got ya.
Dooley Womack
11-23-05, 11:24 AM
Lowell is a bad defender and is done at the plate. It's not just 1 year; he's been sucking since the all star break of 2004. The scouts all say his swing looks pathetic, too. I would love to have Beckett, but not at what it would have cost.
Lowell is possibly done at the plate, but you also have to consider he had only one bad year, plus the last month or so in 2004. Prior to that his numbers were pretty damn good. Maybe the bandbox in Boston might help him, though there have been whispers about his using enhancers in the past (and I'm not only talking about Bill Simmons's latest column).
As for his defense, I haven't followed him extremely closely, but I seem to remember, not long ago, that he's a sure-handed 3rd baseman with a gun for an arm. I'm not sure if that has changed, quite honestly. I see that his ZR compares favorably to David Wright's, Glaus's and others and his RF was amongst the higher ones in the NL last season.
Wang's Groundballs
11-23-05, 11:27 AM
As for his defense, I haven't followed him extremely closely, but I seem to remember, not long ago, that he's a sure-handed 3rd baseman with a gun for an arm. I'm not sure if that has changed, quite honestly. I see that his ZR compares favorably to David Wright's, Glaus's and others and his RF was amongst the higher ones in the NL last season.
Yep, but both of them are below average, too. :P
What's amazing is the 3B who saved the most runs in the NL in 2005 played less than half the season: Scott Rolen.
Anyways, here's how 3B fared in 2005:
PLAYER'S NAME G RUNS RANGE+
Rolen, Scott 54.0 13 181
Sanchez, Freddy 53.2 8 148
Chavez, Eric 149.8 19 146
Feliz, Pedro 65.9 7 140
Inge, Brandon 155.6 15 130
Crede, Joe 124.5 9 128
Beltre, Adrian 147.4 10 125
Mora, Melvin 143.4 10 125
Jones, Chipper 92.3 5 121
Boone, Aaron 139.0 8 120
Burroughs, Sean 73.1 4 118
Mueller, Bill 134.4 5 115
Atkins, Garret 129.2 5 114
Koskie, Corey 74.9 3 112
Ensberg, Morgan 142.9 4 110
Cuddyer, M. 90.7 2 109
Randa, Joe 134.5 3 107
Bell, David 144.2 2 105
Gonzalez, Alex 86.7 1 104
Nunez, Abraham 80.2 -1 96
Castilla, Vinny 130.1 -2 95
Lowell, Mike 125.3 -3 92
Wright, David 156.0 -8 81
Glaus, Troy 140.4 -12 72
Blalock, Hank 152.7 -16 64
Rodriguez, Alex 154.0 -16 64
Ramirez, Aramis 113.4 -11 62
Alfonzo, Ed. 90.3 -13 48
Teahen, Mark 118.7 -27 33
Cantu, Jorge 55.1 -23 -44
cuban_yanksfan
11-23-05, 11:46 AM
Right now, Josh Beckett is the best pitcher on the Sox staff - a 25 year old Schilling if you will, and better than any Yankee pitcher with the possible exception of RJ who is 17 years older.
Don't get your hopes up too high of him failing in Boston, Sam.
There will be one of 2 simple outcomes of Josh Beckett in Boston.
1) He grows up starts actually working on his game and proves to be a dominant pitcher for the next 4-5 years.
2) He continous to have be fat and lazy, spend more time on the DL than Piazza and causes rotation issues for the sox.
That said, Beckett is the most talented (no question) but his work ethic sucks and I like the guys that know they have to earn it. We have a lot of guys that have things to prove next year and I'm excited about their reputatations as hard workers to emerge as good starters next year.
cuban_yanksfan
11-23-05, 11:51 AM
Lowell is possibly done at the plate, but you also have to consider he had only one bad year, plus the last month or so in 2004. Prior to that his numbers were pretty damn good. Maybe the bandbox in Boston might help him, though there have been whispers about his using enhancers in the past (and I'm not only talking about Bill Simmons's latest column).
As for his defense, I haven't followed him extremely closely, but I seem to remember, not long ago, that he's a sure-handed 3rd baseman with a gun for an arm. I'm not sure if that has changed, quite honestly. I see that his ZR compares favorably to David Wright's, Glaus's and others and his RF was amongst the higher ones in the NL last season.
The D is definitly still there. He was bad a the plate in FL but they have a spacious park. He's a flyball pull hitter and my concern is what he's going to do with the monster in left and a lot of good pitches with that lineup protecting him
whalers
11-23-05, 11:55 AM
The D is definitly still there. He was bad a the plate in FL but they have a spacious park. He's a flyball pull hitter and my concern is what he's going to do with the monster in left and a lot of good pitches with that lineup protecting him
Protecting? Unless he is hitting second I dont see the proctection. I'd gladly pitch to him over Ortiz and Manny. He is the sox replacement for Millar int he lineup, a right hand hitter with some pop who's best days are behind him.
JeterRodriguezSheff
11-23-05, 12:00 PM
If the Yanks had the ability to think out of the box, that could have been a reality. 1-0 the GM-less Boston Red Sox, thus far.
Lets wait until the off season is over, who knows we might get wilkerson or bradley by trading Chacon or some other pitcher and get Washburn and be able to keep Cano and Wang
Right now, Josh Beckett is the best pitcher on the Sox staff - a 25 year old Schilling if you will, and better than any Yankee pitcher with the possible exception of RJ who is 17 years older.
Don't get your hopes up too high of him failing in Boston, Sam.
Just because he's the best on the sox staff doesn't make him great. I expect him to be David Wells 2005 with less IP. Not Schilling 2004. And if Beckett and Lowell are the best the sox can do in the offseason then we've already won the offseason war if you will.
Yep, but both of them are below average, too. :P
What's amazing is the 3B who saved the most runs in the NL in 2005 played less than half the season: Scott Rolen.
Anyways, here's how 3B fared in 2005:
PLAYER'S NAME G RUNS RANGE+
Rolen, Scott 54.0 13 181
Sanchez, Freddy 53.2 8 148
Chavez, Eric 149.8 19 146
Feliz, Pedro 65.9 7 140
Inge, Brandon 155.6 15 130
Crede, Joe 124.5 9 128
Beltre, Adrian 147.4 10 125
Mora, Melvin 143.4 10 125
Jones, Chipper 92.3 5 121
Boone, Aaron 139.0 8 120
Burroughs, Sean 73.1 4 118
Mueller, Bill 134.4 5 115
Atkins, Garret 129.2 5 114
Koskie, Corey 74.9 3 112
Ensberg, Morgan 142.9 4 110
Cuddyer, M. 90.7 2 109
Randa, Joe 134.5 3 107
Bell, David 144.2 2 105
Gonzalez, Alex 86.7 1 104
Nunez, Abraham 80.2 -1 96
Castilla, Vinny 130.1 -2 95
Lowell, Mike 125.3 -3 92
Wright, David 156.0 -8 81
Glaus, Troy 140.4 -12 72
Blalock, Hank 152.7 -16 64
Rodriguez, Alex 154.0 -16 64
Ramirez, Aramis 113.4 -11 62
Alfonzo, Ed. 90.3 -13 48
Teahen, Mark 118.7 -27 33
Cantu, Jorge 55.1 -23 -44
Interesting that the two best "naked eye" 3B are right at the top- Chavez and Rolen.
Lets wait until the off season is over, who knows we might get wilkerson or bradley by trading Chacon or some other pitcher and get Washburn and be able to keep Cano and Wang
I think I'd rather trade Wang than Chacon. (in the right deal, of course)
JeterRodriguezSheff
11-23-05, 12:04 PM
[QUOTE=CTSoxFan]I'm curious...which current Yankee pitchers would you slot ahead of Beckett? A healthy (read: two years ago) version of Mike Mussina, which hasn't existed since '03...I can't imagine who else.
QUOTE]
That is hard to answer, I have to wait and see how he does in the AL East and not pitching in a huge stadium.
Right now id take Moose over him, you might say he is a dl risk but so is Beckett. However like I said what the sox are going to get out of Beckett is still unknown.
[QUOTE=CTSoxFan]I'm curious...which current Yankee pitchers would you slot ahead of Beckett? A healthy (read: two years ago) version of Mike Mussina, which hasn't existed since '03...I can't imagine who else.
QUOTE]
That is hard to answer, I have to wait and see how he does in the AL East and not pitching in a huge stadium.
Right now id take Moose over him, you might say he is a dl risk but so is Beckett. However like I said what the sox are going to get out of Beckett is still unknown.
I wouldn't take the current Mussina over Beckett. It's a good question, and quite frankly I'm not sure. RJ probably, though they had somewhat similar seasons last year.
JeterRodriguezSheff
11-23-05, 12:28 PM
I wouldn't take the current Mussina over Beckett. It's a good question, and quite frankly I'm not sure. RJ probably, though they had somewhat similar seasons last year.
But Beckett didnt play in Yankee Stadium in the AL East and didnt pitch over 200 innings. Randy Johnson didnt have the luxury of facing a pitcher ever 9 at bats or playing in a huge stadium. That being said Randy had an off start and a great second half once he talked to a decent pitching coach.(THANK GOD MEL IS GONE) Moose has been ineffective because of injuries the last 2 years but has decided to play through them. The reason I would take Moose is because I think he will be healthy next season(dont ask me why I dont know) and I know he has balls and will pitch if he is able to and I need him to pitch.
cuban_yanksfan
11-23-05, 12:28 PM
Protecting? Unless he is hitting second I dont see the proctection. I'd gladly pitch to him over Ortiz and Manny. He is the sox replacement for Millar int he lineup, a right hand hitter with some pop who's best days are behind him.
Millar is exactly what he'll be. He'll bang double of the wall and knock some out whenever people are on base. Millar was a dangerous hitter before he shoved his head up is #@$$
sundstrom
11-23-05, 01:07 PM
with manny and perhaps damon gone, that lineup isn't nearly as scary. lowell could very well be the 3 hitter with ortiz 4 and varitek 5.
should manny get traded to the angels, dodgers, or mariners as has been rumoured, the sox wouldn't be getting a dangerous bat back in his place, so it's not that bad.
Dooley Womack
11-23-05, 01:09 PM
with manny and perhaps damon gone, that lineup isn't nearly as scary. lowell could very well be the 3 hitter with ortiz 4 and varitek 5.
should manny get traded to the angels, dodgers, or mariners as has been rumoured, the sox wouldn't be getting a dangerous bat back in his place, so it's not that bad.
That's the only hope, but you never know with Manny. Personally, I believe Damon stays and the Sox will be the only team he doesn't demand a contract to play till he's 87.
If both stay, the Sox have improved considerably.
That's the only hope, but you never know with Manny. Personally, I believe Damon stays and the Sox will be the only team he doesn't demand a contract to play till he's 87.
If both stay, the Sox have improved considerably.
Manny absolutely has to be a DH. He apparently is so bad in the field that it nearly wipes out everything he brings with the bat. Of course, as long as Ortiz is around, this can't happen (btw, this is a big part of why Ortiz lacks the value of a player who could play the field). I think the Sox are kind of screwed with him either way. If they keep him, they are paying a boatload of money for a guy out of position. If they trade him, I'm not sure what they get back because of the money.
BTW, while there's probably a difference between having 2005 David Wells (who is likely gone to SD) and 2006 Josh Beckett in your rotation, I'm not sure it's 'considerable'. It's not like Wells was awful.
Martini6196
11-23-05, 01:25 PM
Lets wait until the off season is over, who knows we might get wilkerson or bradley by trading Chacon or some other pitcher and get Washburn and be able to keep Cano and Wang
Call me crazy but based on the 2005 season I would rather trade Wang than Chacon. Chacon not only pitched great once he came over to the Yankees but he came out and pitched lights out after RJ laid an egg in the playoffs. He was the pitcher I trusted the most down the stretch and out of all of the pitchers the Yankees have picked up the last 3 years he is at the top of the list.
I wouldn't trade Chacon for Bradley or Wilkerson. We might as well just try and sign Damon to a three year deal. That way we are only losing money and not players/prospects.
Call me crazy but based on the 2005 season I would rather trade Wang than Chacon. Chacon not only pitched great once he came over to the Yankees but he came out and pitched lights out after RJ laid an egg in the playoffs. He was the pitcher I trusted the most down the stretch and out of all of the pitchers the Yankees have picked up the last 3 years he is at the top of the list.
I wouldn't trade Chacon for Bradley or Wilkerson. We might as well just try and sign Damon to a three year deal. That way we are only losing money and not players/prospects.
We shouldn't trade either of them because we have no one to replace them with.
Martini6196
11-23-05, 01:43 PM
We shouldn't trade either of them because we have no one to replace them with.
I failed to mention that in my post. Thats why I was saying we should just try and sign Damon to a three year deal but for more money per year because then we get to keep Wang AND Chacon while keeping our players/prospects.
JeterRodriguezSheff
11-23-05, 01:43 PM
That's the only hope, but you never know with Manny. Personally, I believe Damon stays and the Sox will be the only team he doesn't demand a contract to play till he's 87.
If both stay, the Sox have improved considerably.
I hope both stay
Damon had the sexy average, but his obp, defense and power are declining. He is going to be signed to a long term deal and he could be Bernie by 2007.
Manny MIGHT be showing some signs of a decline coming. All his rate stats went down last year. Either way he is payed a ton and Id rather the Red Sox pay him than free up all that money. Regardless I hope Manny doesnt get traded because he says that he wont report to ST next year if he doesnt get traded. That would be the ideal situation. The Red Sox lose Manny and dont get anything for him.
Either way if both stay under the terms that I think it will take for them to both stay the Red Sox are going to be screwed in a few years
JeterRodriguezSheff
11-23-05, 01:45 PM
Call me crazy but based on the 2005 season I would rather trade Wang than Chacon. Chacon not only pitched great once he came over to the Yankees but he came out and pitched lights out after RJ laid an egg in the playoffs. He was the pitcher I trusted the most down the stretch and out of all of the pitchers the Yankees have picked up the last 3 years he is at the top of the list.
I wouldn't trade Chacon for Bradley or Wilkerson. We might as well just try and sign Damon to a three year deal. That way we are only losing money and not players/prospects.
After next year or the year after that Damon will be Bernie with a weaker arm. If we get a FA get Jones
I Love Wang
11-23-05, 01:52 PM
If the Yanks had the ability to think out of the box, that could have been a reality. 1-0 the GM-less Boston Red Sox, thus far.
I thought you hated the idea of acquiring National League pitchers. For reference, Beckett last year was nowhere near as good as Javier Vazquez was in 2003 before we acquired him.
whalers
11-23-05, 01:54 PM
Millar is exactly what he'll be. He'll bang double of the wall and knock some out whenever people are on base. Millar was a dangerous hitter before he shoved his head up is #@$$
Did you see Lowell last year. His head was shoved up his @ss.
whalers
11-23-05, 01:58 PM
I thought you hated the idea of acquiring National League pitchers. For reference, Beckett last year was nowhere near as good as Javier Vazquez was in 2003 before we acquired him.
I have been thinking the same thing. Prior to coming to the Yankees Javy was touted to be a ace pitcher as well some people have forgotten that. Also outside of pitcher friendly Dolphin Stadium Beckett had an ERA over 4. Beckett could turn out to be good pitcher for a long time but this has Javy part 2 written all over it.
Dooley Womack
11-23-05, 01:58 PM
I thought you hated the idea of acquiring National League pitchers. For reference, Beckett last year was nowhere near as good as Javier Vazquez was in 2003 before we acquired him.
Dominant NL pitchers like Schilling, RJ and yes, Beckett can pitch in any league. He also showed how he can blow the ball by the Yanks in the WS.
Javy had the same mechanical issues in Montreal as he did with the Yanks and continues to have. Somewhere there's a link to 2 articles-from an NL scout and a Montreal sportswriter that discusses this. Even in his good 2 years in Montreal he had his struggles-sometimes game to game, but worked them out (or at least gave the appearance) against a weaker league and the bottom of the order (including the pitcher batting 9th).
Dooley Womack
11-23-05, 02:01 PM
I have been thinking the same thing. Prior to coming to the Yankees Javy was touted to be a ace pitcher as well some people have forgotten that. Also outside of pitcher friendly Dolphin Stadium Beckett had an ERA over 4. Beckett could turn out to be good pitcher for a long time but this has Javy part 2 written all over it.
Don't wish too hard. There is no evidence whatsoever that he'll turn out to be another Javy. For one, Beckett is a tough son of a b*tch.
Dominant NL pitchers like Schilling, RJ and yes, Beckett can pitch in any league. He also showed how he can blow the ball by the Yanks in the WS.
Javy had the same mechanical issues in Montreal as he did with the Yanks and continues to have. Somewhere there's a link to 2 articles-from an NL scout and a Montreal sportswriter that discusses this. Even in his good 2 years in Montreal he had his struggles-sometimes game to game, but worked them out (or at least gave the appearance) against a weaker league and the bottom of the order (including the pitcher batting 9th).
The problem, of course, is that Beckett isn't dominant. He's good, just not dominant, and 2 starts don't change that. We're talking about a guy who had a 119 ERA+ last year, a career ERA+ of 117, who isn't a knock em dead strikeout pitcher. What you are hoping for is that Beckett becomes dominant. He'll have to do that while adjusting for league and adjusting out of a home park, a home division, and a league that is quite helpful to pitchers.
ZIPS projects 161 IP, 140K, 150H, 52BB, 14HR, 3.88ERA. Good. Not dominant, and then you have to find someone to make up for all the innings he won't pitch who won't be as good.
Dooley Womack
11-23-05, 02:10 PM
I thought you hated the idea of acquiring National League pitchers. For reference, Beckett last year was nowhere near as good as Javier Vazquez was in 2003 before we acquired him.
By the way, I'll even go one step further and make myself look even more contradicting. I want AJ Burnett in pinstripes. (Cashman has already stated he's not interested).
CTSoxFan
11-23-05, 02:11 PM
This is how I look at it as well. The sox pitching still is worse than it was in 2004. As a Yankee fan I look at the 2004 sox rotation as the best the Yankees have had to deal with in recent memory and use it as a measuring stick. Put in my skepticism about Beckett (he smells of the next Vasquez, Clement, Pavano) I am not too worried about the sox next year.
Here's another way of looking at it: the Red Sox just won 95 games in 2005. Assume they retain both Manny and Damon (huge assumption, admittedly)...they've just replaced Wade Miller in the starting rotation with Josh Beckett, and whoever winds up playing first for them will likely be an upgrade over Millar. It's hard not to see them as a 100-win team.
I'm curious...which current Yankee pitchers would you slot ahead of Beckett? A healthy (read: two years ago) version of Mike Mussina, which hasn't existed since '03...I can't imagine who else.
That is hard to answer, I have to wait and see how he does in the AL East and not pitching in a huge stadium.
Right now id take Moose over him, you might say he is a dl risk but so is Beckett. However like I said what the sox are going to get out of Beckett is still unknown.
True enough. Given that Mussina and Beckett both have something of a recent history with the DL, though, I like the odds of Beckett staying healthy at 26 better than I like the odds of Mussina staying healthy at 37.
By the way, I'll even go one step further and make myself look even more contradicting. I want AJ Burnett in pinstripes. (Cashman has already stated he's not interested).
Yes, he's not interested because it he already has at least one 5 year deal on the table. Do you want Burnett so badly that you are willing to match or beat that?
CTSoxFan
11-23-05, 02:13 PM
By the way, I'll even go one step further and make myself look even more contradicting. I want AJ Burnett in pinstripes. (Cashman has already stated he's not interested).
I think Burnett would be a great gamble at the right price. But he's not worth the five-year contract he says he wants, and frankly, not even worth the contract that Pavano got last year. Three years, with an option for a fourth, and I'd be very interested.
Dooley Womack
11-23-05, 02:13 PM
Yes, he's not interested because it he already has at least one 5 year deal on the table. Do you want Burnett so badly that you are willing to match or beat that?
5 years, no. But at least keep the lines of communication open.
Here's another way of looking at it: the Red Sox just won 95 games in 2005. Assume they retain both Manny and Damon (huge assumption, admittedly)...they've just replaced Wade Miller in the starting rotation with Josh Beckett, and whoever winds up playing first for them will likely be an upgrade over Millar. It's hard not to see them as a 100-win team.
They don't replace Miller. Miller is still on the team. They replace Wells, who is going to get traded (to SD).
True enough. Given that Mussina and Beckett both have something of a recent history with the DL, though, I like the odds of Beckett staying healthy at 26 better than I like the odds of Mussina staying healthy at 37.
Sure, but Chacon out Vorped Beckett last year. He needs to pitch a lot more.
Wang's Groundballs
11-23-05, 02:15 PM
Here's another way of looking at it: the Red Sox just won 95 games in 2005. Assume they retain both Manny and Damon (huge assumption, admittedly)...they've just replaced Wade Miller in the starting rotation with Josh Beckett, and whoever winds up playing first for them will likely be an upgrade over Millar. It's hard not to see them as a 100-win team.
Actually, Beckett will be replacing Wells starts since he's as good as gone.
Manny is still a great hitter, but he gives up almost all of his value when he plays the field. He is that awful. Damon was a good hitter, especially for CF last year, but he's not projected to do nearly as well on offense and already is a poor defender. Right now I'll say Lowell is replacing Millar while Youkilis is replacing Mueller. Neither should be much of a dropoff, but at the same time you can't expect another John Olerud to come in and hit like he's back in 1998.
whalers
11-23-05, 02:16 PM
Don't wish too hard. There is no evidence whatsoever that he'll turn out to be another Javy. For one, Beckett is a tough son of a b*tch.
who are you beckett's agent? They way you are going on about him would make you think he is in the same league as Santana or Oswalt but he's not. He could be eventually but he isnt right now. This past season he was 15-8 with an era in the low to mid 3's. To say his ERA will not jump next season in his first year in the AL goes completly against what has been seen the last 3 seasons with NL pitchers moving to the AL. My guees is that he will have around the same record with an ERA a little over 4. Not bad by any means but not lights out either. I dont think I am that far off in thinking his ERA and record will be much too different than Boomer this year.
5 years, no. But at least keep the lines of communication open.
Well gee, telling the press that you don't want Burnett at 5 years doesn't mean you haven't let it be known to Burnett what you would offer. Come on, Dooley. Burnett knows what the Yankees would be willing to pay. He's going to get more somewhere else. A lot more.
Wang's Groundballs
11-23-05, 02:17 PM
5 years, no. But at least keep the lines of communication open.
How do you know they haven't? For all we know they placed a call asking if A.J. would consider them for less than 5 years and X amount of money and were told no thanks. At that point there's nothing you can do except make sure they know to call back if they change their minds or grossly overpay for him.
CTSoxFan
11-23-05, 02:19 PM
Yes, he's not interested because it he already has at least one 5 year deal on the table. Do you want Burnett so badly that you are willing to match or beat that?
Are we sure about this? The best verification I can find is a Toronto Sun piece speculating that the Jays floated him five years and $50 million, but no one is on record anywhere as saying they're offering five years. I'd be really surprised if there was a team foolish enough to guarantee five years for Burnett, who is no more accomplished than Carl Pavano was when he got four years. Then again, this is a brutally tough year to find pitching help, so maybe someone IS dopey enough to overpay.
I Love Wang
11-23-05, 02:19 PM
How is Beckett, to this point, more "dominant" than Vazquez through 2003? Vazquez threw more innings with a lower ERA and a lot more K's in two different hitters' parks. Hiram Bithorn, where the Expos played half their home games, is the most severe hitters park to ever exist. By playing half of their games there, they had a "park factor" of 118. For reference, Coors Field had a 111. So Vazquez, in horrendous conditions, vastly outperformed Beckett. So what the hell are you talking about, Dooley?
Wang's Groundballs
11-23-05, 02:21 PM
Are we sure about this? The best verification I can find is a Toronto Sun piece speculating that the Jays floated him five years and $50 million, but no one is on record anywhere as saying they're offering five years. I'd be really surprised if there was a team foolish enough to guarantee five years for Burnett, who is no more accomplished than Carl Pavano was when he got four years. Then again, this is a brutally tough year to find pitching help, so maybe someone IS dopey enough to overpay.
When Hideki Matsui is getting $12.5 million, medicore relievers are getting $3.5 million a year for up to 3 years, and a 34-year old closer is getting 4 years at $10 million a year, I'd be very surprised if he doesn't get at least that much.
CTSoxFan
11-23-05, 02:24 PM
Actually, Beckett will be replacing Wells starts since he's as good as gone.
Manny is still a great hitter, but he gives up almost all of his value when he plays the field. He is that awful. Damon was a good hitter, especially for CF last year, but he's not projected to do nearly as well on offense and already is a poor defender. Right now I'll say Lowell is replacing Millar while Youkilis is replacing Mueller. Neither should be much of a dropoff, but at the same time you can't expect another John Olerud to come in and hit like he's back in 1998.
Re: the highlighted passage...a little hyperbole is OK, but tell me you don't honestly believe that Manny's defense (which included leading the league in assists) somehow cancels out an annual .300 average and 40 home runs?
I'm perfectly comfortable, by the way, with replacing Millar/Mueller with Lowell/Youkilis, especially if Lowell's 2005 turns out to be an aberration. As much as you say playing in Fenway will hurt Beckett's numbers, you have to believe playing in Fenway is going to be a huge boon to Lowell.
If anyone seriously believes that Beckett will do no better than Wells' 2005 numbers, by the way, I'll happily take that bet.
Saxmania
11-23-05, 02:27 PM
How is Beckett, to this point, more "dominant" than Vazquez through 2003? Vazquez threw more innings with a lower ERA and a lot more K's in two different hitters' parks. Hiram Bithorn, where the Expos played half their home games, is the most severe hitters park to ever exist. By playing half of their games there, they had a "park factor" of 118. For reference, Coors Field had a 111. So Vazquez, in horrendous conditions, vastly outperformed Beckett. So what the hell are you talking about, Dooley?
Beckett has the good face, though. Vazquez should have played for a better franchise that had a chance to get to the World Series and pitch against an aging, exhausted Yankee team.
Be seeing you,
Saxmania
Wang's Groundballs
11-23-05, 02:30 PM
Re: the highlighted passage...a little hyperbole is OK, but tell me you don't honestly believe that Manny's defense (which included leading the league in assists) somehow cancels out an annual .300 average and 40 home runs?
Manny was a +37 on offense last year before adjusting for position (it will go down to about a +30 or so when you do so). On defense, he was a -36 before adding in A which put him at a -28. I would knock off maybe 5-8 runs on defense because the Green Monster messes with his ZR stats a bit, so that's around a -20, lets say. So he's about a +10 before baserunning (my guess is he's pretty poor but I have no stats to back it up) making him worth 1 win above average. He's no more valuable than Hideki Matsui when you consider that, and my guess is he's even less than him. I don't want the Sox to trade him, I'm hoping they're stuck with him while his fielding keeps getting worse and his bat starts to decline.
I'm perfectly comfortable, by the way, with replacing Millar/Mueller with Lowell/Youkilis, especially if Lowell's 2005 turns out to be an aberration. As much as you say playing in Fenway will hurt Beckett's numbers, you have to believe playing in Fenway is going to be a huge boon to Lowell.
Lowell has sucked since midway through 2004. The numbers say this and the scouts say this. Everybody thinks he's toast. Youkilis should be a very good player, especially for his cost. Lowell will look much better in Fenway than PP of course.
Beckett will have a better ERA IMO, but I doubt he pitches close to as many innings as Wells did. Nevermind. I thought Wells threw well over 200 innings. I agree with you on Beckett.
I Love Wang
11-23-05, 02:33 PM
Beckett had a Vorp of 36 last year to Well's 24. I think Beckett gets about 30 this year.
Re: the highlighted passage...a little hyperbole is OK, but tell me you don't honestly believe that Manny's defense (which included leading the league in assists) somehow cancels out an annual .300 average and 40 home runs?
I'm perfectly comfortable, by the way, with replacing Millar/Mueller with Lowell/Youkilis, especially if Lowell's 2005 turns out to be an aberration. As much as you say playing in Fenway will hurt Beckett's numbers, you have to believe playing in Fenway is going to be a huge boon to Lowell.
If anyone seriously believes that Beckett will do no better than Wells' 2005 numbers, by the way, I'll happily take that bet.
1. In the context of the AL MVP discussion, there was some analysis of Manny's defense in LF (not on this board) under the premise that part of Ortiz's value (or lack thereof) as a DH is that he didn't allow the Red Sox to, for example, DH Manny and play Jay Payton every day. During the course of this analysis, a number of sources discussed how bad Manny was in left in 2005 (and yes, he throws some guys out...because they run on him). His defensive value, quite literally, wiped out nearly all of his offensive value. This isn't hyperbole. He was that bad.
2. Lowell had a 77 OPS+ last year. Millar, 100. If Lowell stays relatively the same, even with an outward improvement because of the park, he'll be well below the value of Millar offensively.
3. Beckett should certainly be better than Wells. But, I'm not sure if the difference between the two is gigantic.
DontHateOnNumber2
11-23-05, 02:35 PM
Cashman will not deal our prospects and I'm happy about that.
As am I. We still have Cano, Wang, and Duncan and not Juan Pierre. I'm very pleased.
I Love Wang
11-23-05, 02:37 PM
2. Lowell had a 77 OPS+ last year. Millar, 100. If Lowell stays relatively the same, even with an outward improvement because of the park, he'll be well below the value of Millar offensively.
There it is. As much as we make fun of Kentucky-Fried Kevin for his obvious steroid-induced power drop, he still got on base at a rate 60 points higher than Lowell. That is a gigantic difference.
Wang's Groundballs
11-23-05, 02:38 PM
There it is. As much as we make fun of Kentucky-Fried Kevin for his obvious steroid-induced power drop, he still got on base at a rate 60 points higher than Lowell. That is a gigantic difference.
Especially since OBP is more important than SLG, as you know.
I Love Wang
11-23-05, 02:41 PM
Especially since OBP is more important than SLG, as you know.
Not that that really matters, since KFK out-slugged Lowell by about 40 points. If you hit .236, and your name isn't Adam Dunn or Graig Nettles, you suck.
CTSoxFan
11-23-05, 02:48 PM
Manny was a +37 on offense last year before adjusting for position (it will go down to about a +30 or so when you do so). On defense, he was a -36 before adding in A which put him at a -28. I would knock off maybe 5-8 runs on defense because the Green Monster messes with his ZR stats a bit, so that's around a -20, lets say. So he's about a +10 before baserunning (my guess is he's pretty poor but I have no stats to back it up) making him worth 1 win above average. He's no more valuable than Hideki Matsui when you consider that, and my guess is he's even less than him. I don't want the Sox to trade him, I'm hoping they're stuck with him while his fielding keeps getting worse and his bat starts to decline.
I don't know where you're getting these numbers, but suffice it to say they are NOT universally acknowledged. Using Win Shares, Manny gets 2.9 Win Shares for his fielding alone (yes, that's a POSITIVE number). His overall total was 34 Win Shares for 2005, which ranked him #1 among all American League outfielders (and second only to Brian Giles in MLB). If you want to believe his defense is such an impediment that his offense is entirely negated, by all means, be my guest.
Wang's Groundballs
11-23-05, 02:52 PM
I don't know where you're getting these numbers, but suffice it to say they are NOT universally acknowledged. Using Win Shares, Manny gets 2.9 Win Shares for his fielding alone (yes, that's a POSITIVE number). His overall total was 34 Win Shares for 2005, which ranked him #1 among all American League outfielders (and second only to Brian Giles in MLB). If you want to believe his defense is such an impediment that his offense is entirely negated, by all means, be my guest.
Win shares, especially for fielding, have no value to me. They're not saying he was 2.9 Win shares above average either, so that doesn't really mean much if you don't compare it to what the average LF would have done in his place.
Metrics such as UZR and ZR, which are both lightyears ahead of Win Shares, have Manny around -35 or worse last year, not including his arm.
I don't know where you're getting these numbers, but suffice it to say they are NOT universally acknowledged. Using Win Shares, Manny gets 2.9 Win Shares for his fielding alone (yes, that's a POSITIVE number). His overall total was 34 Win Shares for 2005, which ranked him #1 among all American League outfielders (and second only to Brian Giles in MLB). If you want to believe his defense is such an impediment that his offense is entirely negated, by all means, be my guest.
The lack of negative win shares (or a baseline for what's average) is something that people have attempted to address, but in a more general sense, I would say that defensive win shares, just like a lot of non-play by play defensive measures, tend to get ignored in favor of ones that take each opportunity into account on its own.
scull567
11-23-05, 02:53 PM
2. Lowell had a 77 OPS+ last year. Millar, 100. If Lowell stays relatively the same, even with an outward improvement because of the park, he'll be well below the value of Millar offensively.
mgl did an interesting study over at baseballthinkfactory (http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/sox_therapy/discussion/espncom_mlb_sox_land_beckett_lowell/P100/)(#77) concluding basically that
unless we have reliable information about a player having some injury or something like that, that an anomolously poor or good (banner) year has no more significance than any other kind of year, in terms of player's projection. Yet, people get into discussion and arguments about whether so-and-so will "bounce back" or is "finished," or has had a "break out year" (a banner year), and therefore will continue at or near that new level, etc. I contend that most of that talk and speculation is nonsense. That our best guess of a player's future performance is always some weighted version of his prior year's performance, regardless of what "pattern" those years happen to resemble.
I don't know what exactly the deal was with Lowell but most of what I heard what that he got off to a terrible start and then just started pressing because he worries about this stats so much. Something to think about. I think he'll bounce back and at least put up a .800 ops.
highheat2014
11-23-05, 02:56 PM
I don't know where you're getting these numbers, but suffice it to say they are NOT universally acknowledged. Using Win Shares, Manny gets 2.9 Win Shares for his fielding alone (yes, that's a POSITIVE number). His overall total was 34 Win Shares for 2005, which ranked him #1 among all American League outfielders (and second only to Brian Giles in MLB). If you want to believe his defense is such an impediment that his offense is entirely negated, by all means, be my guest.
CTSF, I'm a Sox fan and I have to disagree with you. Manny's defense is ATROCIOUS. His ZR is even worse than it should be because of the Monster, but it also bails him out (assists, doesn't expose his awful range.) He gets exposed bigtime when the Sox are on the road.
27IsNext
11-23-05, 02:56 PM
The following offers were turned down by Brian Cashman:
Good. Those offers sucked.
scull567
11-23-05, 02:56 PM
Win shares, especially for fielding, have no value to me. They're not saying he was 2.9 Win shares above average either, so that doesn't really mean much if you don't compare it to what the average LF would have done in his place.
Metrics such as UZR and ZR, which are both lightyears ahead of Win Shares, have Manny around -35 or worse last year, not including his arm.
But do you truly believe that Manny is only 1 lousy win about average? I've heard people claim that his defense makes him a a below average player. And wouldn't you think the Red Sox with bill james and all their belief is using stastical evaluation would realize this and trade him?
Powered by vBulletin™ Version 4.0.7 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
0