It's a lot harder to develop starting pitchers and everyday players than bullpen arms. That's the #1 reason people don't want to piss away Hughes or Chamberlain in the bullpen.
It's a lot harder to develop starting pitchers and everyday players than bullpen arms. That's the #1 reason people don't want to piss away Hughes or Chamberlain in the bullpen.
Bud's starting this thread was a wonderful thing. Us real Yankee fans, with demands and expectation finally get our own thread. Since this got started you don't see me posting on the thread where you vote on who you think is the 87th best Yankee prospect and make up something sunny to say about him as you go along.Originally Posted by Matsui55
I'm no longer bursting balloons on the other threads. You fragile types really should do yourselves a favor and stay away.
Let me take that down. As those Guiness guys used to say "brilliant."
Although, other than the cream of the crop closers, bullpens and veteran bullpen preformers are notoriously inconsistent. Lots of bad money dolled out every year in futile efforts at building a stable bullpen.
Two n's.
Calmer than you are.
Like a train wreck, can't help but watch, etc.Bud's starting this thread was a wonderful thing. Us real Yankee fans, with demands and expectation finally get our own thread. Since this got started you don't see me posting on the thread where you vote on who you think is the 87th best Yankee prospect and make up something sunny to say about him as you go along.
I'm no longer bursting balloons on the other threads. You fragile types really should do yourselves a favor and stay away.
Tiger Woods:Sent: 01:28 PM 09/08/2009:
Have you ever had a golden shower done to you
Yes, leap right over that shark! That's the spirit!Bud's starting this thread was a wonderful thing. Us real Yankee fans, with demands and expectation finally get our own thread. Since this got started you don't see me posting on the thread where you vote on who you think is the 87th best Yankee prospect and make up something sunny to say about him as you go along.
I'm no longer bursting balloons on the other threads. You fragile types really should do yourselves a favor and stay away.
Be seeing you,
Saxmania
Mayonnaise is a demanding master.
I've loved it. Mainly because every other thread isn't ruined by off topic garbage.
The guy is a little over the top, but I don't think many disagree with the main points, just the delivery.
All that said, the Yanks can't sign EVERY good player out there. I personally think the Tex signing hit them in the wallet hard. It SEEMS that they have slowed their pace a little. Maybe not if we look at the facts.
- The Yankees should use their resources to spend the most money internationally and on the draft EVERY YEAR.
- They should use their resources to scout these players more intensely via more scouts/bigger travel budgets/bigger signing bonus', etc.
- If a player is estimated to be worth $1 mil, by the scouting world as a whole and by the Yankees, they should be willing to spend $1.2 mil because THEY CAN.
- Hankie boy shouldn't lip about what he'e GONNA do. Just do it and shut up. (unfortunately, he just shut up).
I agree a lot with the guy, I just don't hate the Yankee front office for it.
WARNING! This post may be offensive to little girly men or women with soft feelings.
Never argue with an idiot. They'll bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.
A lot of to do about nothing. This all is out of context with my BRIEF" comment. The Nancy comment warrants the sharkboy label.
Nick Swisher INNINGS in CF before 2009
04: 1
05: 0
06: 2
07: 481 (-8.8 UZR150)
08: 535 ( -10.9 UZR 150)
I'm seeing a guy who wasn't a CF to begin with, was put in there in 07 because the A's other CF's (which included Mark Kotsay and a injured then traded Milton Bradly plus a bunch of no names) were terrible and he's the best of 3 bad options. Then the White Sox foolishly did not realize this and decided that it was a good idea to start him there full time 08 and took a few months before they realize they're retarded. your spinning it as if he was a good CF then steadily declined into a old hobbled corner.
No one is talking about Nick Swisher and Curtis Granderson as the "core" although they would be core playeres on many lesser teams. we are discussing them because you brought up that they're "declining players" . while you spilled out yourself that true elite players "Extend their prime" unless you feel that Jeter and A-rod aren't truly elite players (in which case the truly elite player in the history of baseball would include about 20 players or less) . and then went on to blab about the lesser supporting cast players .
Do you even read your own post and see the highly self contracdictory comments one after another? you went on and on about Arody and Ajax then blubed that they're "marginal prospects"
yes, like that Roger Clemens fellow, such a support cast guy that isn't a top name!The money going into the development system is been surpassed by several small market teams in recent years. The farm's ratings have dropped. Montero, Joba, and Hughes joined the system under a far different climate. They were added when the Yankees experienced the effects of a severely strapped roster by a revaged farm system. The lesson didn't last very long. There isn't near enough in the system to build that next core. Without it, the bloated roster is destined to be more tease than please.
This core, that still produces championships, was patiently built with a commitment of capital and uncommon restaint in keeping them in the system until they were able to contribute at the major league level WITH THE YANKEES. The veteran pick ups during the dynasty years were the supporting cast-- brilliantly assembled and not always of the biggest, most expensive names.
http://www.baseballprojection.com/war/top500p.htm
Oh yeah, and it's not like they traded for a guy that won the Cy young two years before joining the Yankees like David Cone. or another guy that finished 2nd in the Cy votings once before joining and once with the Yankees. you know, like that Jimmy Key guy.
And yup, they never traded for aging guys on the decline for a lot of good prospects
The Yankees traded and signed both big names AND supporting cast in the 90s. to say otherwise is being blind or highly unsubjective.David Justice June 29, 2000: Traded by the Cleveland Indians to the New York Yankees for Zach Day, Ricky Ledee and Jake Westbrook.
Also, Paul O'Neil drove in 100 + runs 6 times and had a OPS + above 130 5 times while with the Yankees . if those are supporting cast #, then Barry Bonds is just your everyday garden variety HOF slugger.
is it really? there's a balance to everything, if you have Albert Pujols at 10M a year . do you trade him for the farm system of any random team? even the best once? prospects today are not as cheap as your making it sound, top IFAs routinely sign for 1M or 2M or more. and there's no guarentee they always pan out. the biggest catch on the IFA in the year that the Yankees signed Montero was Angels Villaona, who was arrested last year in the DR .... for murder.History shows an all out effort in acquiring ametuer talent is the most cost efficient approach to building championships than the living from year-to-year, forever filling roster holes with these expensive veterans that forfeit the chance at building on to that future core (aka losing guys like Viz and Jack.) The present core was built when no Steinbrenner was present. Those days are gone for good. They now live almost exclusively for the present. It will catch up to them, shortly and no over-the-top support, in this forum, of the less-than-middling group of prospects will change that.
You take your chances, there is no clearly right or wrong answers for anything, the Red Sox won a championship in 07 thx to the Josh Beckett trade, they also traded away a guy who now seems like a highly likely HOF player. (As likely as a guy can be at age 25 anyway)
Sheets signed for 10M, roughly what the Yankees are paying for Vazquez. their track record in terms of ERA have been similar, except one has pitched 30+ start for almost 10 strait season and the other hasn't had two consective healthy season in 5 years and didn't pitch at all last year.No way of knowing if Vizcaino and Jackson ever pan out. Simply feel that filling the present roster needs with FA that would cost no more then the players acquired without having to give away prospects possessing the potential to be worthy of a next generation, young core is the lesser gamble.
Bedard AND Sheets, plus Vizcaino > Vazquez
CF Byrd and LF Damon, plus Jackson > CF Granderson and LF Gardner
If Jackson becomes that low cost, two way CF'er while Vizcaino becomes a low cost, top-of-the-rotation stud, the cash savings can allow me to get much better veterans in the FA market than Vazquez and Granderson. That scenerio is worth the risk and worth waiting for, especially when you consider the present is as likely to be as good with the FA's added.
Time, as always, will tell.
Jackson's chances of being ready THIS year, is very slim. if you diss Granderson but likes Byrd then I question your talent judgement. seeing that Byrd's OPS outside of Arlington in the last 3 year is .740/.772/..715 . oh and he's 3 years older than Granderson and the Cubs signed him for 3/15 . so your advocating playing youth but purpose we go after someone who is now on the hook for age 32-34 (and NOT an elite player by any stretch of the imagination.) oh right he's UZR also went from 15 to -9 in 08-09, so by your definition he's in ULTRA STEEP decline.
It is almost guarenteed that Byrd / Sheets will not come close to Granderson / Vazquez in 2010 barring disastorous injuries to the later. they also aren't cheaper. (so the Damon logic doesn't hold. since Byrd + Sheets alone = Granderson + Vazquez for 2010. ) seeing that even now on paper the Yankees are just a little bit better than the Red Sox, I'm sure you'll be thrilled if we keep the kids who may or may not pan out and almost surely won't help in that season for a season like 2008.
FOR TAIWAN!
rollingwave, you may be my new favorite poster
1) Who the f&#$ said Swishers was hobbled. I said a hitter who's best asset is his OBP, has a low BA, with a high range on-the-scale, moderate power numbers, is not driving the ball enough based on latter two facts to not hurt his value in RF whe moved off of CF in '08. Yes, the White Sox were wrong, the Yankee's got a bargin. I loved the move. Just not a core player for a contender and I feel his '08 year was the start of his decline years, '09 was the blip in the screen. 2010 will be a telling year in that regard. Obviously, my opinion-- we shall see.
2) AGAIN, I stated that the Yankee's core was aging. To refute this fact someone (not worth naming) used Swish. and Grand. as examples to the contrary. So, either he thought of them as core talents or he took the same "Learning to Read for Dummies" and "Learning to Debate for Dummies" courses you did. Maybe you'll understand this: My tarzan/apeman immitation here for full effect "I say first get 'em elite players, because they play real good and for longer time, then need 'em lesser, good guy, role players, because can not have 'em only elite players on team, but together can make 'em good team."
3) I read my own posts, wish you had the capacity. Clearly using sarcasm, I referred to Jack. and Viz. as marginal prospects in referrence to this boards propaganda level biases. Not a bad word was uttered about either until they were traded. Only then did all the flaws become issues. Had I included the same critisms about them while they were still Yankees it would have been meet with predictable denial.
4) Roger Clemens was indeed amoung the "best-in-the-biz" type preformers when traded here. Therefore I was all for it then. And would support it now. I see a distinction between Clemens and Vazquez. Also, at the time the Yankees had a young core and a highly rated farm system, so they could easily absorb the loss. And that deal was a steal for the Yankees as there were no players with Vizcaino's ceiling involved. Cone also > than Vazquez.
And no, they never did trade good, young prospects for aging players, THEY KEPT THEM-- Jeter, Rivera, Posada, Williams, Pettitte, ect. They knew their system back then and traded prospects that never panned out, yet managed to keep the Jeters and the Posadas. Dumb luck, right? And the highly rated young 2b Soriano included for the 28 y.o. ARod was a good use of the system-- justifiable.
5) Yeah, they did trade for a big name, it just didn't cost them future core members despite having a deep system. Presently, a thin system is getting thinner by trading better prospects for lesser talent (LOOK >>>) IMO. During those dynasty years the acquisitions were by-and-large the complimentary parts, the home-grown young talent were the stars, Clemens being the exception to the rule. When that still present core is done, this system simply won't make that possible. And all the acquisitions big and small led to domination with a payroll nowhere near as bloated as this one. I said build a dominant, sustainable development system that only the Yankees are capable of and they could win big by only filling in with role players. They did MOSTLY that during their dynasty years. Clemens IS THE exception, Cone was considered on the decline when the Yankees got him. The much beloved O'Neill was the ultimate complimentary piece on a great team. Most of the core players on those teams are future HOF'ers. O'Neill falls short of that. Was not among the top 5 at his position, Bonds was always the best at his. Dopey pairing anyway you look at it.
6) This system would be horse s&#% right now without Montero, who was a big name, highly touted, IFA signing. And it is a very different IFA system than only a few years ago. Scouting is becoming more advanced down there, age verification is mandatory and they are beginning to play in real competition. The percentage of busts is coming down closer to drafted talent levels all the time. This fact, along with the small market teams becoming factors means the Yankee's won't have it as easy anymore-- however, it is still the single biggest area to exploit the system. The Yankee's response, sadly, has largely been to take their ball home. And with the hieghtened interest in LA, the sound of crickets is heard from the Yankee's interest in the pacific rim. And I don't expect an epidemic of murder cases plaguing the IFA system. But, maybe that can be used as an excuse here for having small market teams out spend us in the IFA market. By balance, you must mean a Yankee IFA budget closer to the MLB average.
7) Sheet's price is shocking, especially when considering his resent workout. So as any good GM needs to have a plan B, mine is innings eating Jon Garland and the high ceiling Bedard being sign. Will cost a little more but, if the farm system really meant as much as they say, they would extend themselves a little and keep future, young gun Vizcaino and get better present results. Garland as your inning eating no. 4, for the regular season. Eric Bedard as a late season shot-in-the-arm. I'll take that over Vazquez any day. And I say Vazquez will stink this year. Mark it down.
8) ONCE MORE, I like Byrd because I get to keep Jackson, as I'm planning on being a fan beyond this year. Most fans, judging by this sight are now in line with the Yankee's way of thinking, living like tomorrow will never come. It's as if George S. wrote his version of "Money Ball" and Cashman and the rest of you are sucking it all up-- problem is the George influenced years never did work out well in the long run. And I SAID BYRD IN CF AND DAMON IN LF WILL BE BETTER PRODUCTION THAN GRANDERSON IN CF AND GARDNER IN LF. AND MY WAY I STILL GOT JACKSON.
You really want to win big now and even bigger in the future-- sign both Byrd for 3 years (1 1/2 as a starter and 1 1/2 as a 4th OF allowing for a smooth transition for Action Jackson) and Reed Johnson to a 1 year (check out their righty/lefty splits, despite hitting from the same side.) Then sign Jermaine Dye for LF. Better production and my future isn't adversely effected-- costs a little more but well worth it.
9) AGAIN I said Sheets (who became cost prohibitive and unlike Cashman's costly fixations, I would move on) and Bedard, at the time . And Byrd and Damon. Although, I will say Vazquez and Granderson are due to dissappoint. So even with your twistings I still may come out ahead. We will see.
Sure it would cost more, but only in dollars and not cost a potential big chunk of your future. The true cost would be a big longterm savings if either Jackson or Vizcaino spent their cost controlled years here. That's always a gamble. It's also the type of gamble I stongly advocate. Looking at this system, there won't be much payroll relief on the way. Agreed, Red Sox are not far behind and yet their payroll is significantly lower. Would be proof to some that there is a better way.
Either keep the payroll at record levels or begin the decline-- those are some big costs as well.
Last edited by what's up doc?; 01-27-10 at 10:51 PM.
Granderson/Gardner will outperform Byrd/Damon. They'll be equal or better on offense and probably 20-30 runs better on defense.
Make sure you keep it that way and not pull the bad memory routine once he's proven to be dead wrong.
Saying it again doesn't make it any less absurd-- just adds another layer to it.
K. Law:
"25. New York Yankees
Lost picks and trades depleted the system; they traded two guys currently in the top 100. After Jesus Montero, the next impact guys are probably Slade Heathcott and Gary Sanchez, with three pro games combined to date, while their highest-ceiling arm, Andrew Brackman, struggled with command in his first full year back from Tommy John surgery."
Just further proof of the media out to get the Yankees. First BA and now this guy. They don't care about their professional reputations, they just care about making the Yankees prospect look bad.
How's that sound? About the same as the rest of the posters?
I thought so.
this thread is pretty horrendous.
He's talking to himself now. Really awesome stuff.
Tiger Woods:Sent: 01:28 PM 09/08/2009:
Have you ever had a golden shower done to you
Which part of my factually correct statement do you take issue with?
Keith Law also had the Red Sox ranked 2nd and the Mets 11th. That list is garbage too. Same with the MLB.com list. The very fact that Arodys Vizcaino is now more highly regarded after being traded is proof these mainstream prospect rankings are crap.
Here's ESPN minors guru Jim Callis on AViz:
Contradiction much? Arodys was an afterthought until he was put in the national spotlight. Then he became hyped up and suddenly a top prospect BUT Yankees prospects aren't underhyped. Those guys are paid by ESPN to slurp America's favorite, small market underdog. Don't take their crap seriously.Mickey (Tempe, AZ)
How did Arodys Vizcaino seem to become a better prospect after he was traded from the Yankees to the Braves?
Jim Callis (2:31 PM)
I think he just got more time in the spotlight after getting included in the trade. Yankees prospects aren't underhyped.
You're gonna set my country music award on fire?
I was taught not to! I just expected more from little Buster
"If we have to, we'll hoard everybody. That's what the Yankees used to do."
“Most lineups will hate facing our pitching and most pitching will hate facing our lineup,”
ZIPS projects Granderson to a 111 OPS+ next year, Damon to a 110, Byrd to a 101 (pretty poor in the outfield), and Gardner to an 81.
For Gardner, of course, you need to add in quite a bit of base-stealing, and both Granderson and Gardner are better defensively than Byrd and Damon. Plus, they can be locked up long-term, and will probably end up cheaper. Gardner will improve; Granderson might; Damon and Byrd won't.
Matsui gets a 119 and Johnson a 128, by the way. Plus, again, Johnson can play 1B and is a lot younger. Winn wasn't rated (but the owner admits that he should have been); I'm guessing around an 80.
Be seeing you,
Saxmania
Mayonnaise is a demanding master.
The mere fact that he thinks signing Jon Garland as a plan B is even a good idea is outlandish. If you want innings, just throw Mitre out there, I'm sure he can do just as well as Garland. ROFLMAO
I mean like we keep Vizcaino who might be able to help us in 4 years and be another SP, oh my god, what are we doing yankee fans? Do you guys not see it? We have no young players, were goign to be bad forever, oh my god. EF YOU BRIAN CHASHDSMAN OR WHATEVER YOUR NAME IS YOU DISPICABLE MAN YOU
..and I'm pretty sure that doesn't include rehab time.Mariners head trainer Rick Griffin hinted Thursday that free agent Erik Bedard might not be ready to pitch for another three-to-five months.
Bedard underwent exploratory surgery on his left shoulder in August that revealed a torn labrum and inflamed bursa. According to Griffin, he was given a 10-to-12 month recovery timeline and it has only been seven. In other words, he might be ready by late April, but chances are he'll be out until May. No wonder he's drawn such little interest on the open market this winter.
Tiger Woods:Sent: 01:28 PM 09/08/2009:
Have you ever had a golden shower done to you
Garland is not a bad pitcher. He's actually a great back of the rotation innings eater. He won't ever dominate, but he consistently goes out there and puts up quality starts. And he's pitched most of his career in the AL.
Now he's nowhere near the pitcher that Vazquez is, but he's a million times better than Mitre.
Garland has had declining peripherals for a few years now. He's an OK innings eater as you mention but for $5M I think the Yanks can spend that money better.
I'm sure he'll put up nice numbers in PETCO assuming the Padre OF defense is at least adaquate. But personally I see Garland as 5ish ERA picther on a prospective basis. We'll see.
Mitre I think is mostly useless so I can't really argue much with you on that one.
I'm not so sure what makes garland "a million times" better than Mitre. Yea, he's better, the gaps just really not that big. He has more of track record, but in terms of performance and true talent level, he's not exactly in a whole other world than Mitre. If we let mitre start 35 games I'm pretty sure he could do 180 innings and a high 4's era.
What reason do you have to believe that? The guy is in his late 20's and has a career ERA of 5.56 with most of that being in the NL. In 07 he may have put up a 4.65 ERA as a starter, but he did that in the NL east and did that while giving up 11 hits per 9 with about 1.5 WHIP. He's never been a good pitcher, so even if he fully regains his pre-injury form you're still looking at a pretty bad pitcher and its not like he's suddenly going to magically become a good pitcher since he never was any good.
Garland is clearly a better pitcher because the guy consistently pitches about 200 innings every year (since he was 22). He wins minimum of 10 games every year. He has an ERA in the mid 4's and gives you quality start in about 2/3 games. This past year he had 23 quality starts in 33 games. With the Yankees offense he'd probably win about 15 games.
Now let me be clear I'm not suggesting that we should've signed Garland as Vazquez is clearly better, but to laugh off the idea and claim that Sergio Mitre is better than one of the more consistent pitchers in baseball is simply absurd.
I agree. I think he'll be closer to a 4.00 ERA in the NL West and PETCO, but yea in the AL East he'd probably be somewhere near or around 5. Nothing special, but a decent pitcher. Unlike Mitre who I completely agree is not good at all.
Sorry, I don't know why were arguing the fact of mitre and garland. I simply used the analogy to show that I wager them both to be worse then league average.
"Law's rankings:
Montero - 10
Banuelos - 96
Former Yankees:
Vizcaino - 43
Tabata - 57
Jackson - 70"
From five down to two! And why, I ask? Just why? What did we get in return?
*Didn't need Nady and a superior alternative to the over-the-hill Marte was signing Affelt AND KEEPING TABATA.
*As for Vizcaino and Jackson, all the Yankees will have to show for them in two years is an aging Granderson. Vazquez' pitching will be so mediocre there is no gaurantee the Yankee risk arbitation, just wait and see.
That little suck up, nerd is a butcher disguised in a Brooks Brothers suit.
Yeah, I said it and I'm not sorry. Cut me, do I not bleed?
"We have a lot of kids with huge upsides in the low minors. But that's a long way away. The ratings will go up next year."
This quote coming from one of the boards biggest eternal optimists. After a disappointing July 2nd and draft, by any reasonable standards, the implied reason was the Chapman carrot-on-a-stick. Once that fizzled out, there was the report of a group of IFA's who have signed after October yet, mysteriously had not yet been made public. Now comes the sunny prognosis of where the system is headed. If you can't see a big let up both in rhetoric and action towards player development over the last two years, following a brief flurtation period, your just refusing to see it as it really is.
Fact is, there are NOT a lot of kids with huge upsides in the low minors when compared to other clubs and after Montero graduates to the bigs, the system will be rated even lower.
As for the usual low percentage that do make it to the upper levels with their status intact, they will simply be used up in more shortsighted trades to shore up the holes that are sure to sprout up thanks to the most unimaganative, unrefined, unsophisticated, and undeserving GM is baseball.
Then again, he did sign Randy Winn. I'm pinching myself, I hope I'm not dreaming.
After seeing where he ranked the Mets, you seriously want to quote Keith Law?
Yep. Just like Cano, Hughes, and Chamberlain were. Oh, wait . . .
EDIT - and who do you think that Cashman is sucking up to? If your answer ends with the name 'Steinbrenner' then, well, that's not that far away from being his job . . .
Be seeing you,
Saxmania
Mayonnaise is a demanding master.
The Kieth Law bias thing is just plain dumb. Come on now, it's his job. He wants to be right on his evaluations and is not going to purposefully underrate/overrate talent based on what club they play for and risk underminding his reputation.
But, I use him as an outside perspective. Here's mine.......................................
In the very near future the Yankees could have had:
in RF-- Tabata, a above average defensive right fielder with an offense edging close to a prime aged IRod's numbers.
in CF-- Jackson, who has stands an excellent chance of being the next Devon White, with possibility of better offensive numbers. And back in his day, for 5 years, Devon White was 1/3 of what was widely believed to be the best OF in baseball.
in P-- Vizcaino, I see a fast mover, provided no major injury. As a comparable upside, go ahead and laugh, I see a poor man's Doc Gooden (the young years.)
Have the patience of keeping this intact and adding it to a young Frank Thomas-like monster masher and a savy beyond his years lefty in Man Ban, who has enough stuff to make the crafty label just part of the equation and you would of had my juices flowing. Sure it's no gaurantee, but if it comes even close, the Yankees would have budget relief to add some tantalizing pieces through free agency.
And, the sad truth is, I have read nothing hear to convince me that the FA market didn't offer enough talent to shore up present needs and retain a chance at a far better future. And the worse part of all, had they simply kept up the interest and commitment to player development that they showed in the mid-00's, they would have almost as many, just like this group, qeued up right behind them. I salavate at the thought of Montero gaining a foot-hold in the major league just as Sano was moving up the system-- fast.
Why this point of view delagates me to loose canon poster on this board says more about yourselves than it does about me.
Last edited by what's up doc?; 01-30-10 at 05:57 PM.
Or, let's look at this another way. Who are the significant prospects traded away by Cashman over the last decade, and what have they contributed in the majors (not what ranking they have on a prospects list; that doesn't win anyone anything):
Ted Lilly: Useful major league pitcher. Career ERA+ of 107. Given who he was traded for, it would be good to have him back, though he'd be a 4th/5th starter on this team.
Juan Rivera: Below-average corner outfielder with a career OPS+ of 107. Again, might have had his uses, but was never going to be part of a new 'core'.
Dioner Navarro: I liked him. Has a career OPS+ of 78. Not all that special, it turned out.
Brandon Claussen: Out of baseball in 2006, after 58 starts at an ERA+ of 87. Not exciting.
Brad Halsey: Out of baseball in 2006, with 42 starts at a career ETA+ of 92. Slightly more useful, but no more than 5th starter, and never a part of a long-term plan. Value nearly none.
D'Angelo Jiminez: Out of baseball in 2007, with a career OPS+ of 92. Not bad for a 2nd baseman, but not good defensively, and he was unlucky with injuries. Except for the gap between Soriano and Cano, New York hardly missed him.
Marcus Thames: Still in baseball with a 104 career OPS+; 4th outfielder stuff. a less-good Granderson, and you hate Granderson.
Randy Choate: Left baseball in 2007 with a career 103 ERA+. Pretty awful for a LOOGY.
Randy Keisler: Career ERA+ of 66. Moving along.
Nick Johnson: Very good hitter; we just got him back. You don't like him, so . . .
Who else do you want to talk about? Erick Almonte? Brandon Knight? Jorge DePaula? Tyler Clippard? I've left out players above 26 when traded, as I don't see how they can be considered prospects.
Seriously, where is this long line of budding All-Stars that Cashman has banished? If Cashman is a 'butcher', then I think you have to conclude that most of his victims took the form of mercy killings. You keep complaining about Vizcaino and Tabata and Jackson, but they haven't turned into anything at the major league level yet. You assume they will, but past history (see above) suggests that Cashman is very good at trading away prospects who don't become much.
Or, put another way: Cashman kept Wang, Chamberlain, Hughes, and Cano over the last 10 years. Those four, put together, have already produced more value than all the prospects I listed above put together who were traded away over the last decade, and almost certainly all the ones I didn't, too. Probably more than they'll ever produce, actually.
I was against trading away some of the names above. Navarro, Claussen, Johnson. While they may not always have brought back great things, they also seldom turned into much. You're just making stuff up at this point. Who are all these long-lost treasures you pine for?
Be seeing you,
Saxmania
Mayonnaise is a demanding master.
I didn't use the word "bias", champ. You did.
People who follow not only Yankees prospects, but also other teams prospects, should know that how ridiculous his top 100 prospects list is.
Yes, of course, Steinbrenner, as in George, more recently Hank, and now Hal. He's had his nose up their butt holes ever since he became an intern. There have been GM's who stuck to their principles when up against George's unfocused, impulsive demands-- Michaels and Watson. Cashman can't hold a candle to those two professionally. And their strong back bones are in sharp contrast to the doctile Cashman. When Hank wanted to build the system, he obediently complied. Stated it was the better way to go. Along came the influence of the all-about-business Hal and his concerns with luxury suite sales. It's Hal who prompted him to make the Tabata trade, read both mens quotes at the time. And the same goes for the FA binge of last year.
Sure, a WS could not have been bought without it. But, it did not have to cause the abrupt turn about in player development. No luxery tax for signing IFA's and over-slot signings in this still wide open MLB system. As far as the mounting cost of both the FA slurge of '09 and a continued large investment in the ametuer market-- it would have produced a cost savings in a larger focused, fiscal horizon. And it stood a very good chance of producing a monumental level of succes on the field.
The Steinnbrenners impatience stood in the way. That and a jelly fish for a GM.
Then your blame belongs with the Steinbrenners, not the guy they hired to run their property the way they wanted it run!. Honestly, this isn't a hard concept to grasp. An employee owes his employer his honest opinion and the ability to make a case for it; he does not owe his employer to ignore his orders unless the owner is actually mentally ill or something.
Don't go there.
You have a surreal notion of what Cashman's job actually is. He's employed by the Steinbrenners to run their baseball team in the way that they want it run. You, nor I, have no idea how much Cashman stands up to them or not in private. You, nor I, have no idea how hard he did or didn't fight to protect Tabata, or trade him, or blow $500m on a long-term contract for Enrique Wilson. I suppose Cashman could have quit in protest. Then again, the fact that he's just delivered a World Series win suggests to me that his abilities are still intact.
You're just making things up.
Be seeing you,
Saxmania
Mayonnaise is a demanding master.
I would have pined over Wang (past tense,) Cano, Chamberlain, and Hughes. Points to a system that was on the mend in recent years. Half from that group came from that blimp of the mid-00's (Edit: thanks to sax's pointing it out,) when the Yankees had increased there interest in the farm.
Jiminez' car accident makes his inclusion misleading. Johnson and Navarro are the only other two that stand out as, once-upon-a-time, being high upside prospects. Claussen and Lilly were guys with middling ceilings but, veiwed with good chances of reaching them.
And I liked getting Johnson back and wouldn't mind Navarro right about now.
That list covers a large window in time. Points more to the ravages caused largely from neglect. I say the group I mentioned is better. Hope your around when one of us is proven wrong.
No, you didn't. But many have. And it really is stupid.
Well, all but one are still there, and the one that isn't left because of massive injury and form problems, not because Cashman traded him for the latest shiny All-Star. So you agree that Cashman's done a great job of holding onto the most valuable prospects of the last decade, and dumping the refuse?
Well, this couldn't BE more wrong! Wang was signed in 2000. when we're told the Yankees were selling out their prospects to fund more World Series. Cano was signed in 2001. Nothing in the 90s about that.Points to a system that was on the mend in recent years. Half from that group came from that blimp of the mid-90's, when the Yankees had increased there interest in the farm.
Yankees sold high, and were right to, that's what I'm hearing here. Navarro might be better than Cervelli, but might be worse, and has already reached his ceiling, and is more expensive. Trading away a backup catcher for the Yankees is hardly the most heinous crime; how many World Series did that cost us?Jiminez' car accident makes his inclusion misleading. Johnson and Navarro are the only other two that stand out as, once-upon-a-time, being high upside prospects. Claussen and Lilly were guys with middling ceilings but, veiwed with good chances of reaching them.
And I liked getting Johnson back and wouldn't mind Navarro right about now.
So Johnson and Lilly delivered some value, and Navarro wavered between average-quality starting catcher and good backup. Cashman The Butcher Of The Bronx traded away one very good but injury-prone 1st baseman, a 4th starter, and a backup catcher. Yes, he's veritably another Stalin.
So Cashman traded away all the many, great, young, high-ceiling prospects since the mid-90s, but there weren't any apart from Johnson, which proves how neglected the farm system was? Riiiiiight.That list covers a large window in time. Points more to the ravages caused largely from neglect. I say the group I mentioned as better. Hope your around when one of us is proven wrong.
I've been here for more than 8 years. Read into that whatever you want.
Be seeing you,
Saxmania
Mayonnaise is a demanding master.
It didn't take any ability, just an open check book. And as I already pointed to men of talent and integrity, in Michaels and Watson, who consistently butted heads with George Steinbrenner on issues important to them. What's important to Cashman-- keeping his job.......PERIOD. Chances his stated beliefs as often as George twitches.
That's not the best man (and I use that term loosely) for the job.
Then why act like I did say that?
Since you seemingly put a lot of stock into what Law says, would you take the Mets system over the Yankees?
"Well, this couldn't BE more wrong! Wang was signed in 2000. when we're told the Yankees were selling out their prospects to fund more World Series. Cano was signed in 2001. Nothing in the 90s about that."
I stand corrected, it was a typo, I meant to refer to the period in the mid-'00's, with the recommitment to the farm system that produced half the names you mentioned. Obviously, Joba and Hughes didn't get drafted before they were teenagers.
You have no idea whether Cashman did this or not, unless you're privy to an awful lot of senior Yankee meetings. In which case, this is an odd hobby you have. You're just making assumptions because they fit your pre-conceptions, trying to validate a point which no-one can ever demonstrate one way or the other.
So, again: you're making things up. And the Yankees have won 2 World Series and 8 division titles in the last 10 years, and have one of the best prospects in all of baseball. Clearly, Cashman is doing something right.
Be seeing you,
Saxmania
Mayonnaise is a demanding master.
what's up doc = chicken little. At least your posts before used some factual thought on your part, but the last two pages here became pure slander, unsubstantiated hatred for Cashman. Vizcaino could be the next Pedro Martinez, but NOT next year. Maybe in 4-5 years. Yankees have a 200 mil payroll and are built to win now, not in 4 years. IF and that's a big IF, Vizcaino is supposed to become a cost-controlled ace. Or when Jackson will become the player Granderson is now.
Congratulations and thank you for number 27, Yankees !!!!!!!!!!!!!. 1 game at a time to 28. C'mon, Yankees.
Didn't mean to, simply implied that the boards generally accepted dismissal of Law and everyone else who rates the Yankees system lower than what they would like, based on a fan bias that over-rides their professional integrity is stupid. Again, didn't mean that you were one of them, I meant to state that I was not in that group.
No, I wouldn't take the Mets system over the Yankees ONLY because of what I view as the very special upside of Montero. Only 5-10 players in all of the minors with his impact potential, in my mind.
Most of these guys rate systems based on the quantity of high and mid rated prospects with an emphasis on how high in the system they are. A Heathcott has "A" type potential but, you won't see Sickles give him that designation at this point. The Mets do have an overall better crop of prospects in the upper level (although not nearly enough to superseed Montero, using my system that one potentially historic, elite player alone can make a system.) But, based on their (Law, Sickles, BA, and even BP) criteria, I see no problem with Law rating the Mets higher. I do, however, have a problem with how quickly their respective standings have shifted.
The Mets at 15 & the Yankees at 25 though? That's a joke, a really bad joke at that.
How about when he glorifies Boston for stock piling low level prospects yet cuts the Yankees down for doing the same thing? He's a mountain of hypocrisy & his word is nothing that should be taken as gospel. You can call him bias, lazy, or just a moron...none of which would be totally inaccurate.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote