I can't believe this clown has an 8 page thread dedicated to him.
I can't believe this clown has an 8 page thread dedicated to him.
Seriously, people just need to ignore him.
Calmer than you are.
Like the rest of you, I'm offering up MY opinion. Money made something right (IMO,) not Cashman, who has signed more bad contracts than anyone in baseball during his years as GM. Not even close.Originally Posted by Saxmania
I already offered up quotes from the Tabata trade as evidence that Hal was pulling the strings at the time. This is years after Cashman stated that he was now completely in charge and would not have resigned as GM, if it was not so.
Not long after this, he began making statements to the effect that the Yankee organization, with him at GM, had spent a lot of bad money on acquiring costly, veteran pitching that did not pay off. Said that the Yankees were recommited to developing pitchers from within the system as a better investment model. Hank make boisterous statements in backing him. This plan lasted one season-- 2008. The next year, along came Sabathia and Burnett.
It has been widely reported that as the 2009 season approached, just as Hal took the lead role, Hal wanted to create a big splash due to the economy driven, lackluster, high end season sales for the new stadium. He was willing to forgo the propossed (by Cashman,) plan for gradual MLB budget reduction and developmental reinforcement in order to boast sales.
Now for guys like Sax read carefully. I loved the signings of Sabathia and Teixeira. Didn't even mind Burnett, although he will be bad money before his contract is up. Everything in his past points to this. Those moves were important bridges from the aging stars to the next generation. My problem is with that even more important next generation. A better, more savy GM would have found a way to parlay the incredile boast to present day success the Steinbrenner money provided and manage to not ravage the upper level of the farm system in the manner he did. Not for the return he got. Not if he really meant what he said two short years ago, when he refrained for going after Santana based on the strength of his commitment to player development.
Statistics point to position players as being better prospect investments, based on lower career damaging injury rates. Cashman's near entire emphasis on developing young pitchers was misplaced. It was bound for failure with a team like the Yankees-- Hughes and Kennedy should have been brought along slowly. Cashman was dead wrong. A 200 million budget should always provide a supply of needed veterans arms, who have proven their genetics have, in the past, handled the unnatural strain of throwing a baseball, in order to contend at the highest level. Boston somehow manages this and brings along prospect at well under 200 million. Pitchers in general are a big risk-- can't live with 'em, can't win without 'em. Therefore, IMO, you don't get rid of the potential upside of a Vizcaino for an old, expensive, and up-and-down Vazquez. You hedge your bets and sign a vet or two and don't risk losing a potential world beater upside. That's the far bigger risk.
If Cashman was any good at all, blessed with the biggest advantage in all of pro sports he could find a way to win now and not compromise the future. At least not until the farm system is finally up to the standards that should be expected, with all the inheirent advantages-- players dropping due to slotting like in no other sport and a free-for-all IFA.
And as I've stated many times before. With the huge Yankee money at his disposal, if he had any real sports accumen, he would realize he could have his cake and eat it too. No Santana meant still having Hughes and signing Sabathia. Didn't learn a thing from it. Tells me there was no plan in place, just dumb luck. The same kind of dumb luck that got him the dream GM gig and managing to keep it despite himself.
Boston's system IS better, by far, no getting around it, unless you are biased.
That makes you the bigger clown for adding to it.
Going by your contributions, your going away wouldn't amount to much.
Right, I've been all downhill...
http://forums.nyyfans.com/showpost.p...&postcount=521
Calmer than you are.
Anyone remember that dougj character that got suspended for life for adding worthless drivel? Can we do that again?
Tiger Woods:Sent: 01:28 PM 09/08/2009:
Have you ever had a golden shower done to you
First guys, this thread is just messed up. I mean if your hating on the Yankees and their staff THIS much, then why exactly are you still here? Why aren't you on some Red Sox board where they think all of the prospects rankers word's are gospel? And hes not saying he thinks the Red Sox system is better hes saying they should not be ranked as high as they are. Come on Red Sox at 2 and Yankees 25? The RS have high talent guys in the lower levels just like the Yankees, maybe better. Upper levels what Lars Anderson and a couple pitching prospects who a bit overhyped? (I don't know their system well but I can't be forgetting that many good people there at that level)
If Montero goes to 1st than he would be in the same position as Lars and I think we can all agree Montero is much much better. Know pitching wise the Yankees have a lot of good pitching guys in the upper minors that don't get any love.
Now Red Sox are better but 23 spots? Come on man just stupid
L to the O to the L.
IRod from 24-32 had a .522 SLG. Tabata barely surpassed a .400 SLG last year and was under the 2 years before that. He's young, but scouts don't see him developing power. I'd take back the trade knowing now that we still miss the playoffs in 2008, but Tabata is hardly an impact talent. He also had stagnated in NY and had conditioning and attitude problems. Maybe the Yankees are at fault for not being able to work through those, but it's a pretty big warning sign.
What? Devon White? The Devon White that won multiple gold gloves and was over 100 runs above average according to total zone? Yes, I'm sure Jackson, repeatedly described as having average skills across the board with awful total zone ratings, will be that good.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.
I wouldn't be surprised if Jackson is (eventually) a little better with the bat, but he's a high SO, low power hitter and his BABIP is going to crash in the majors. Keith Law doesn't see an impact talent either, saying that as he's moved up the levels he looks more and more like a league average guy. Like Tabata, a fine prospect, but not a core guy and someone you move for Granderson 100 times out of 100.
Well at least you said poor man's. I'm fine with the Javy trade, but I do hate losing Arodys. He actually does have impact talent, although he's still a lottery ticket considering his experience, back problems, and lack of a good 3rd pitch.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.)
http://forums.nyyfans.com/showpost.p...60&postcount=4
"And I sure hope you're not referring to JVIS. Amid the darkness he has been a beckon of light."
Opppppppps, I was hoping you forgot that one. It pains me to have to harken back to those more lucid times.
Really not your fault, should have never said what I said. They finally got a hold of you. You're to far gone now to realize it.
It's like that old movie "The Stepford Wives." You're now robotically walking around, glassy eyed, with an empty stare and wearing a '70's style Karen Carpenter granny dress.
Why? Am I taking time away from your book burning activities?
After reading some prospect projections, I think Hughes2.50 is back.
He devotes 3 sentences per team. He gives an overview for each. The thing that strikes me with the Red Sox is the fact that they really are unwavering with their commitment to the farm system. Talent at all levels is apparent. Despite a fairly recent, historic spike in MLB payroll, their finacial commitment to the farm has not declined as a result. In the limited space available, I can see why he choose to say what he did. And it does pain me to say it. Don't like them. Honest.
As for the Yankees, the same limited space was devoted to why the Yankees fell as low in the rankings as they did. They traded two of their top 3 prospects. It's a national article and not everybody is following what the Yankees did in the offseason. Again, it's an overview, hardly in depth. Simply devoted the space to the more obvious issue.
A mountain of hypocracy? Now really.
I am a proactive fan. I expect more from a 200 million dollar roster. During the Steinbrenners rein, the Yankees have always spent to get the best playing talent. Must give them credit for that. Yet, when it comes to GM hirings, they have treated this franchise like a small, family business. They hire from within the closed oganizational circle and their comfort zone. Having Cashman at GM is like Chumlee from that reality show "Pawn Stars" being made head of purchasing. Place Cashman as GM of any other team and he's gone in no time, having been exposed.
If they ever conducted an industry wide search, headed by professional baseball people, looking to hire the most talented GM, the league would have to change the rules to in order to slow the Yankees juggernaut. Beinfast, Jocketty, (Epstein) or a guy like Terry Ryan. Judging from what the Twins get out of their system, at their budget, bringing their value principles to a franchise with this capital and willingness to spent...........now that's a thought that scares the rest of the league to death.
Given time, many prospects exceed their minor league numbers offensively, due to the fact that in the minors they play almost exclusively at night, under inferior lighting. I give Tabata and Jackson a good chance of being above average offensive contributers at their respective positions and very good fielders, especially Jackson. Maybe not core players but their cost savings can help you go out and get some.
I'm done for now. I'm entering a self imposed exile. Have had enough of bruising the delicate ego's here. I will return towards the end of the year only to humbly take my lumps if my alternate plan proves to be all wet.
Yeah, I can't say that this stands up to scrutiny. Juan Pierre? Chan Ho Park? Bobby Higginson? Cashman's made some bad signings, and some other OK signings that turned out bad, but you severely underestimate how bad some other GMs have been.
Hal's the owner. That makes him the boss. What do you think Cashman could have done? Wrestled the driving wheel from him and knocked him out with a WS trophy? Introduced a Bill of Impeachment in the Senate?I already offered up quotes from the Tabata trade as evidence that Hal was pulling the strings at the time. This is years after Cashman stated that he was now completely in charge and would not have resigned as GM, if it was not so.
The Steinbrenners get to decide how their team is run. Cashman offers his expertise and executes their orders. The level of detail that owners offer for their strategies varies greatly; historically the Steinbrenners have been very hands-on, like John Henry. Others are more distant, and the GMs have more latitude.
The more you post, the more you give an impression of someone who doesn't understand how baseball teams are run.
But you say below you love Sabathia and Burnett, and they cost the Yankees no young pitching (except maybe a draft pick or two), and they're not that old. So this isn't really a criticism, is it?Not long after this, he began making statements to the effect that the Yankee organization, with him at GM, had spent a lot of bad money on acquiring costly, veteran pitching that did not pay off. Said that the Yankees were recommited to developing pitchers from within the system as a better investment model. Hank make boisterous statements in backing him. This plan lasted one season-- 2008. The next year, along came Sabathia and Burnett.
But you have no idea if this is true. It could be that Cashman and Steinbrenner had always agreed that 2009 would be the Year of the Big Spend, and didn't want the market to take advantage of them by jacking up the price of free agents. It could be that they changed their mind.It has been widely reported that as the 2009 season approached, just as Hal took the lead role, Hal wanted to create a big splash due to the economy driven, lackluster, high end season sales for the new stadium. He was willing to forgo the propossed (by Cashman,) plan for gradual MLB budget reduction and developmental reinforcement in order to boast sales.
Cashman's managed to hold on to Montero, Hughes, Chamberlain, McAllister, Romine, Banuelos, and Nova. Did I wish that he'd managed to keep the entire farm system intact? Yes. Was it feasible without severely reducing the quality of the 2010 Yankees? Probably not. Of the suggestions you've offered, Sheets and Bedard are big question marks, Damon will be 36 and his numbers were boosted by playing in NYS (which Johnson and Granderson should now see the benefit of), and Byrd's not good.Now for guys like Sax read carefully. I loved the signings of Sabathia and Teixeira. Didn't even mind Burnett, although he will be bad money before his contract is up. Everything in his past points to this. Those moves were important bridges from the aging stars to the next generation. My problem is with that even more important next generation. A better, more savy GM would have found a way to parlay the incredile boast to present day success the Steinbrenner money provided and manage to not ravage the upper level of the farm system in the manner he did. Not for the return he got. Not if he really meant what he said two short years ago, when he refrained for going after Santana based on the strength of his commitment to player development.
No, it's really not. Cashman's history demonstrates that he's been very good at figuring when to let a prospect go; usually when their value has been at their highest. A prospect as far from the majors as Vizcaino is a lottery ticket, while you seem to be thinking he has a 60% chance of being Felix Hernandez. It's just not realistic.Statistics point to position players as being better prospect investments, based on lower career damaging injury rates. Cashman's near entire emphasis on developing young pitchers was misplaced. It was bound for failure with a team like the Yankees-- Hughes and Kennedy should have been brought along slowly. Cashman was dead wrong. A 200 million budget should always provide a supply of needed veterans arms, who have proven their genetics have, in the past, handled the unnatural strain of throwing a baseball, in order to contend at the highest level. Boston somehow manages this and brings along prospect at well under 200 million. Pitchers in general are a big risk-- can't live with 'em, can't win without 'em. Therefore, IMO, you don't get rid of the potential upside of a Vizcaino for an old, expensive, and up-and-down Vazquez. You hedge your bets and sign a vet or two and don't risk losing a potential world beater upside. That's the far bigger risk.
If Vizcaino has one season as good as Vazquez did last year, he will have massively beaten the odds for starting prospects. They just are big, big gambles.
Well, Cashman is winning now, and has recently graduated two very good starting prospects, one All-Star level 2nd baseman, and has an All-Star-quality hitter who might stick at C on the way. That's really very good. When you graduate players to the majors, your minors take a hit; that's unavoidable.If Cashman was any good at all, blessed with the biggest advantage in all of pro sports he could find a way to win now and not compromise the future. At least not until the farm system is finally up to the standards that should be expected, with all the inheirent advantages-- players dropping due to slotting like in no other sport and a free-for-all IFA.
Um, there was no-one nearly the quality of Sabathia on the free agent market this offseason. Plus, signing Type-A free agents costs draft picks. Your proposed veteran signings would make the Yankees worse, not better, in order to protect prospects with a very good chance of failure.And as I've stated many times before. With the huge Yankee money at his disposal, if he had any real sports accumen, he would realize he could have his cake and eat it too. No Santana meant still having Hughes and signing Sabathia. Didn't learn a thing from it. Tells me there was no plan in place, just dumb luck. The same kind of dumb luck that got him the dream GM gig and managing to keep it despite himself.
And, of course, your ludicrous rhetoric of Cashman as a 'butcher' and a 'jellyfish' simply have no relationship to reality, as I've demonstrated above.
Be seeing you,
Saxmania
Mayonnaise is a demanding master.
So the prospects you like will perform better than their track record indicates, but all the prospects who Cashman traded away, who were higher-rated and had better minor-league track records, and then never went on to do much of anything, are irrelevant to discussions of Cashman's ability?
How short-sighted.
Be seeing you,
Saxmania
Mayonnaise is a demanding master.
Just out of curiousity has anyone a list of players signed for say $500k + over the past 10 years. By year?
Just curious to see if there is any pattern.
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.
This may explain some of the Yankees drafting slump.
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/bl...aft-using-war/
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.
Interesting.
Focusing on the First Round
Here is the WAR/year based on draft position within the first round:
1-10-- 1.417 WAR/year
11-20-- 1.115 WAR/year
21-30-- .353 WAR/year
There is a drastic drop in performance between picks 11-20 and 21-30. The difference between the top 10 and 11-20 is not nearly as large. What does this mean? There is likely a general consensus of the top 20 or so prospects each year. After this however, the talent quickly becomes more diluted and it becomes increasingly tougher to find players who might contribute in the major leagues.
so according to that article, teams like the Nationals and Pirates are perennially drafting prospects 4 times better then what falls to us. However in recent years we have been taking more signability cases, or players that are actually 11-20 talent but fall to 21-30. This seems like a very wise move.
ping to include IFA Biatchings and arguements
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.
I feel I need to start by stating.....I am a mellow fellow and a cool dude. Don't mean to stir any pots. I simply felt a need to review this thread at this time.
So how did that undearly departed, nasty ole troll, Doc (?, I think that was his handle) do with his alternate plan for the season? Just askin'.
Peace and Love.
RO this clown again mods.
Calmer than you are.
I guess it's semantics, because my definition of a clown is a guy who stays on a message board day and night and never has anything substanative to say, yet always manages to say it with a smugness that hints at an intellect that simply isn't there. But nice try in avoiding the indisputable.
Was that the alternate plan that included Ben Sheets as a Yankee starter and claimed that Nick Swisher was on the decline? Or the alternate plan that confidently told us all that Cashman would butcher the Yankees' farm system if not stopped? (Surely no single line of thinking could be so silly as to include both . . .)
[re-reads thread] AND Bedard? Hee-hee . . .
Be seeing you,
Saxmania
Mayonnaise is a demanding master.
No. You're the guy who cares enough about an internet message board to come back after being RO'd, create a new account, act like you're someone else, then call yourself a "mellow fellow and a cool dude."
Calmer than you are.
I dunno, JVIS. I'm skeptical - after all, if I were as embarrassed by my predictions as "what's up doc" must be by his, I would avoid digging up this thread altogether to prevent further humiliation. It would be the act of an imbecile to come back on as a sockpuppet and perpetuate the shame, wouldn't it?
And I'm sure "CODasinGOD" is no imbecile.
Be seeing you,
Saxmania
Mayonnaise is a demanding master.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote