Yanks to go hard after Rowand and Santana?

mlbtraderumors.com

Do you think Wachovia does enough advertising on that site? Yeesh...

by Willton on Oct 20, 2007 6:48 PM EDT 0 recs

Today

It was American Gangster.

Chien-Ming Wang+Phil Hughes+Ian Kennedy+Joba Chamberlain = the future

by marcbouch9 on Oct 24, 2007 7:45 PM EDT up 0 recs

I would trade make the Santana trade

if I could do it with Melky/Wang and I was sure we could extend his contract, but to go Melky/Wang/IPK seems too much. Thats one established starter and one first round draft pick huge prospect.

The trade part is only for one year on his contract. I would love it if we could just sit and sign him in free agency with Pavano and Giambi money.

Do we really want Aaron Rowand? His season looked impressive 27 HRs and and a .300+ batting average, but it looks to me like an outlier. Last years season was shortened but he only hit .262 in 109 games. He's a career .286 hitter with a quarter of his homerun total coming in this last outstanding season.

Rowand also has a reputation as a good defensive player. Zone Ratings don't tend to agree...

I would pass on Rowand if we still have Damon because we have Damon anyway AND he was rated as a better centerfielder.

Eleven wins in October...

by Edwantsacracker on Oct 20, 2007 7:32 PM EDT 0 recs

Stupid

Neither Rowand nor Santana is worth giving up Melky, Wang, and IPK. All three of those will perform well for us in the future, and I'd rather take homegrown talent and develop them further than gamble on overpriced free agents/trade acquisitions as we have in the past. As Edwantsacracker said, let's just wait out Santana's contract and pursue him in '09. And let's keep going with Melky, in either center or left. If we're looking for a better centerfielder (or a more athletic leftfielder), let's explore trading Matsui and Damon. If Pettitte doesn't return, we'll need to get a starter, but we should look at someone less expensive (in terms of the talent we'd have to give up and probably come to regret) than Santana. And we can pick one off from a team that isn't likely to be a contender. How about Aaron Harang, Erik Bedard, Scott Kazmir, Matt Cain, or Tom Gorzelanny? We also need a setup man and maybe another middle reliever, and though it'd be nice to have an assured ace in the rotation, I think our greater pitching need is the bridge from the starter to Mo.

by SenorSwanky on Oct 20, 2007 9:46 PM EDT 0 recs

Stupid with a capital S

Santana is no "Superman". Wang can match him for wins, and ultimately that's all you want. I think IPK is the best of the holy trinity, and I'd hate to think of him becoming a Cy Young winner in another uniform.

As for Melky, he's shown he has the defensive chops. He's got great energy and we need to leave him alone for now.

"Baseball is the background music of my life." -George Will

by Ronster22 on Oct 22, 2007 11:57 AM EDT up 0 recs

Wins mean nothing for a pitcher

You can get a win allowing 0, 1, 4, 9, 15...any number of runs. Your offense dictates the rest. By relying on wins you're saying that a pitcher is in control of what his offense produces.

Santana will, in theory, allow fewer runs over a longer period of time. This will, in turn, lead to more team wins, not bullshit pitcher wins.

River Ave. Blues
Yanks and prospects

by PinstripePowerhouse on Oct 22, 2007 12:35 PM EDT up 0 recs

So...

...will the Yankees get the Santana of this past season? If so, I don't want him. Will the old Santana return? If so, maybe. But who is the Santana who will show up and play for the Yankees? Probably not the Santana who pitched for the Twins the few seasons before this one. Seems like every pitcher we acquire pitches worse when they put on pinstripes.

by SenorSwanky on Oct 22, 2007 9:58 PM EDT up 0 recs

Absolutely

Why in the hell would we want a lefty starter whose ERA+ was 130 and whose WHIP was barely over one and who struck out more than a batter per inning. What we ever do with such a bum?

Fear the Evil Empire

by pfistyunc on Oct 22, 2007 10:01 PM EDT up 0 recs

Ooh! Ooh! I know!

Um, win the division?

by Willton on Oct 23, 2007 12:33 AM EDT up 0 recs

Bingo!!

Don Pardeau, tell him what he's won!

Fear the Evil Empire

by pfistyunc on Oct 23, 2007 7:13 AM EDT up 0 recs

Seriously

The Yankees acquisition of pitchers was not the pitchers fault, it was the move that was wrong. A 36 year-old Clemens (first time around, eventhough he won a CYA), a contract-year Jaret Wright, a one-year wonder Carl Pavano, and a 40-year old Kevin Brown. What about Cone? Key? Lieber? Mussina? Wells? Those guys were pretty good. Santana's worst year was last year and he was still a Top 10 pitcher in baseball. As a Yankee, he's 21-8, 3.00, 220IP, 220K, and a 1.10WHIP if he's average Johan.

Bottom line: If you can keep Wang and 1 of the 3 young starters, which most likely won't get it done, you do it every single time without even deliberating. Santana buys you 2-3 years to let the rest of the young pitchers come along. Santana, Wang, Pettitte, Chamberlain and Kennedy for next year is better than fine, and then wait for Garcia, Sanchez, Betances or Horne to come along and fill another spot.

Chien-Ming Wang+Phil Hughes+Ian Kennedy+Joba Chamberlain = the future

by marcbouch9 on Oct 23, 2007 8:35 PM EDT up 0 recs

No I'm not

Suppose Santana goes 18-5 with a 2.45 era. Wang goes 18-5 with a 3.87 era. Who helped the team more? Each got the team 18 wins, but Santana got the Cy Young. Wins are all that matters to the team. Wang typically pitches deep into games--as does Santana, so apart from k's and era I don't see a measureable difference.

"Baseball is the background music of my life." -George Will

by Ronster22 on Oct 23, 2007 12:34 PM EDT up 0 recs

Santana helps a ton more

His 2.45 ERA means he's allowing fewer runs per game. That means he's putting his team in a better position to win, since they don't need to score as many runs.

Of course, ERA isn't the only thing. Guys put themselves into better positions to win by doing a number of things, striking guys out and inducing weak groundballs being among them.

It also stands to reason that if both Santana and Wang pitched with an average offense behind them, Santana would put up a better record with his 2.45 ERA than Wang would with his 3.87 ERA.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that your comparison combines process and result. That's not reality, though. The process does not always dictate the outcome. But you always have to value the process over the result, because results are more apt to fluctuate, while process remains consistent -- at least in theory.

River Ave. Blues
Yanks and prospects

by PinstripePowerhouse on Oct 23, 2007 1:29 PM EDT up 0 recs

True but ...

The premise of my arguement was this:
Both win 18 games. If both win 18, it negates the era. Still if it comes down to Santana over Wang, I'm going with Santana everytime--just not at the price people are suggesting.

"Baseball is the background music of my life." -George Will

by Ronster22 on Oct 23, 2007 2:51 PM EDT up 0 recs

The foundation of your argument is poor.

18 wins on the Yankees and 18 wins on the Twins are not the same. Steve Trachsel won 15 games for the Mets in 2006 with a 5+ ERA. Were his 15 wins as impressive as Roy Oswalt's that year? Absolutely not. There is much more (i.e. ERA, Ks, WHIP, K/BB, GB/FB, IP/S) that goes in to being a good pitcher. Pitching good enough to win games is important, but wins are often times overrated. Wang is not in the same class as Santana. Not even close.

Chien-Ming Wang+Phil Hughes+Ian Kennedy+Joba Chamberlain = the future

by marcbouch9 on Oct 23, 2007 3:02 PM EDT up 0 recs

Never said

Wang was anywhere near Santana, but wins are wins. Believe me, I know the importance of WHIP, ERA, quality starts, but the bottom line is wins.

"Baseball is the background music of my life." -George Will

by Ronster22 on Oct 24, 2007 2:22 PM EDT up 0 recs

Wins

Yes, but the offense has just as much to do with a win as the pitcher.

River Ave. Blues
Yanks and prospects

by PinstripePowerhouse on Oct 24, 2007 3:00 PM EDT up 0 recs

Agreed

There is no comparing Santana's 19 wins in 2006 and Wang's. I have defended and argued for Wang as being underrated, but Santana wins mainly because of his performance, independent of his offense. If you check out baseballprospectus, they show Wang winning 15 more games over the last two years because of "luck", which is wins minus what you should have won, and Santana won 2.5 more.

Chien-Ming Wang+Phil Hughes+Ian Kennedy+Joba Chamberlain = the future

by marcbouch9 on Oct 24, 2007 7:44 PM EDT up 0 recs

I'm with Ronster

Wins are not as meaningless a stat for starters as everyone now makes them out to be. One run is all it takes sometimes to get one.

I know everyone likes to be able to measure everything statistically these days, but there are still human beings playing the games.

For a starting pitcher, winning a game has an awful lot to do with what he has between his ears and, in the Yankees case, underneath the interlocking NY.

Some guys know how to win (Pettitte), some guys don't (Javy Vazquez). There are aberrations, but offensive support tends to even out over a career. Some guys know how to pitch to the scoreboard (Jack Morris comes to mind), others don't.

It's a small sample, but this is why I like Kennedy so much. On the night he had nothing (KC I think) he was able to recover from bad early innings and give his team a chance to win. He will be a winner.

by matthaggs on Oct 25, 2007 12:55 AM EDT up 0 recs

Please, matt

"offensive support tends to even out over a career."

Can you prove that to me? Or is that just anecdotal?

Yes, human beings play the game. I'm not trying to reduce everything to statistics. In fact, I've soured on many statistics over the course of this very season.

A win is a statistic. A win, when attributed to a pitcher, is a dumb statistic. Wang gives up two runs, the Yankees score three. Win. Wang gives up two runs, Yankees score none. Loss. He pitched just as well both times -- better in the loss, actually, because every pitch is that much more important (though pitches are pretty damn important with a one-run lead).

If you allow fewer runs, you're putting your team in a better position to win. And that's all that matters, right? I think that's where we all get confused. Team wins are what matters. But you can't equate a pitcher win and a team win. Another instance: Wang goes out and tosses seven shutout innings. Yankees score none. Then they score two in the ninth and the Yanks win 2-0. No win for Wang.

If he goes out and throws like shit, allows five runs in five innings, but A-Rod and Giambi go nuts and hit four homers between them, Wang can walk away with a win. Clearly he wouldn't deserve one in that situation, and if Giambi's and A-Rod's swings are a fraction of a second off, he would be saddled with a loss.

I'm just firmly against giving a pitcher binary credit for something over which he doesn't have complete control. Even ERA has a lot to do with defense. But I can't go into other measure of a pitcher, things over which he has the most control, because I'm then told that humans play the games, and you can't reduce it to statistics.

It's a terrible cycle, and a lot of people here perpetuate it.

River Ave. Blues
Yanks and prospects

by PinstripePowerhouse on Oct 25, 2007 8:35 AM EDT up 0 recs

Valid points

But I still say there are pitchers who know how to get a win, and there are pitchers who don't. Pitchers who pile up wins year after year don't do it accidentally. One year yes, but Wang has done for several years now. He is a "winner".

All of the examples you gave above are clear cut.

Maybe the best way for me to explain what I'm driving at is to use an example: David Wells.

Early in his career, if he didn't have his best stuff, he would phone it in, take the loss, and slam a few beers in the clubhouse.

Then something clicked upstairs with him, and he found away to hang around a game long enough to pick up wins on days he didn't have everything working.

These are the type of pitchers and the type of outings that I was talking about. Not the hard luck losses or the lucky wins, but the ability to sniff out a win and grab it by the throat. I believe this is a skill. Wells learned how to do it, Schilling learned how to do it, etc. etc. etc...

by matthaggs on Oct 25, 2007 12:32 PM EDT up 0 recs

Yes

But as their wins climbed so did their peripherals. Or, should I say, their wins climbed because of their peripherals.

Once that thing clicks in their head, as you say, they start pitching better. They pitch more efficiently, walk fewer batters, give up fewer long balls.

Yet we can quantify these improvements in more areas than wins. And its in these areas, the process, where wins are made (the results).

River Ave. Blues
Yanks and prospects

by PinstripePowerhouse on Oct 25, 2007 12:36 PM EDT up 0 recs

Right

but for some guys it never clicks.

They put up good "peripherals", but they don't win games. Or, better put, they don't win nearly as many games as they should.

It's a tired expression, but there are many pitchers who pitch just well enough to lose.

by matthaggs on Oct 25, 2007 6:22 PM EDT up 0 recs

I'm Probably Going to Embarass Myself

But my cousin and I discuss this frequently and tried to figure out why certain pitchers win more. We researched Wang and Halladay, who have surprisingly similar numbers, over the past two years and found Wang won a higher % of quality starts, Hallady had a higher % of ND in quality starts, and Halladay won more games in non-quality starts. The first two were predictable, but the last one was not. It did reinforce the fact that wins are a byproduct of pitching deep into games, having a good K/BB ratio and WHIP. Run support only increases your ability to win if you do those things well.

Chien-Ming Wang+Phil Hughes+Ian Kennedy+Joba Chamberlain = the future

by marcbouch9 on Oct 25, 2007 7:15 PM EDT up 0 recs

Disagree, again

ERA, Whip doesn't win championships. Wins win championships--whether you benefit from a two-run jack off the bat of Miquel Cairo (had to throw him in), when you had nothing. Or you pitch a two-hitter and lose on an error. Wins are wins.

To suggest that a pitcher doesn't "deserve" a win is insane. If his team wins--by hook or by crook he's the guy on record. I heard Tom Seaver say several years ago that out of 35 starts, he knew that a third of those starts he would have his A-game and he had to win. On a third of the starts he would be mediocre and wanted only to give his team a chance to win. And on a third of his starts he would have nothing leaving the pen. He said those were the starts that determine if a pitcher is a Hall of Famer.

I couldn't agree more. A pitcher needs to figure out a way to win--period. Look at Pettitte. He's a winner, but many of his wins are sloppy. Does that diminish him?

Frankly, in looking at Santana's stats, I think he should have probably won another 5-6 games this season. Is anyone looking at what he does in those starts when he has nothing?

"Baseball is the background music of my life." -George Will

by Ronster22 on Oct 26, 2007 10:25 AM EDT up 0 recs

I posted this in one of the other threads

2005-2007
Quality Starts:
Santana 70/100 (70%)
Wang 50/80 (62.5%)

Outliers (fewer than 5IP and/or 6+ ER)
Santana 6/100 (6%)
(pitched fewer than 5 innings once in last 3 years!)
Wang 9/80 (11.25%)

Santana doesn't really have many bad days.

You nailed it on the head though- wins are a great way to evaluate a team. If Cairo comes through, he's helped the team move towards a win, and if Santana can hold down the opponent, the two of them combined could be enough. But it's unfair to place total credit for a win on any single player.

"Have faith in the Yankees, my son. Think of the great DiMaggio."

by jscape2000 on Oct 26, 2007 10:47 AM EDT up 0 recs

But the pitcher doesn't win

The team wins. Yes, the pitcher has to figure out a way to keep his team in the game. But, as we saw with Pettitte on multiple occasions earlier in the year, sometimes the offense doesn't give you any support. He got hampered with at least two losses he didn't deserve.

But you keep saying the same things -- the pitcher needs to do this, the pitcher needs to do that. Exactly. But in crediting a pitcher with a "win," you're crediting him with what the offense did, something he has zero, none, nada, NO CONTROL OVER!

How can you figure out how to win if your offense puts up a goose egg? You can't. It's an impossibility. You can go nine innings and allow zero, but if your offense doesn't score, you don't win.

By crediting a pitcher with a win, you're crediting him with his performance as well as that of the offense. I've yet to hear any refutation of that point.

What I'm also trying to get at here is that just because they've always done something some way (in this case, crediting pitchers with wins), doesn't mean it's the right way to do it. Wins as a pitching stat are fucking arbitrary. At the risk of being long-winded and losing my point (the paragraph above): Guy throws five innings of six-run ball. Pitched like shit. But his offense managed three runs in those first four innings. Bottom of the fifth, they knock in four, and it's 7-6. The pitcher gets the win, even though he pitched like shit.

Now, you'll argue that he kept his team in the game. But the team was only still in the game because their offense scored all those runs. If the offense was having a bad day and scored no runs, the pitcher would suffer a loss. Same performance, but the offense dictated whether it was a win or a loss.

That is why it's dumb to give a pitcher credit for a win, and why it's dumber to rely on them to reveal anything to you.

River Ave. Blues
Yanks and prospects

by PinstripePowerhouse on Oct 26, 2007 11:14 AM EDT up 0 recs

Talking about different things

Yes, there are plenty of times when a starter has a horrible day and gets bailed out by his offense. And yes, there are plenty of times when a pitcher has a great day and gets nothing from his offense.

But the times I'm talking about is the middle ground. When the offense does a little but not alot, and/or when the pitcher doesn't have his best stuff but gives up less runs than his team scores. Some pitchers pitch differently depending on the score of the game, others never vary their approach. I believe the former will win more games over the course of a career, and in this scenario using wins to judge the career of a starting pitcher is not a waste of time.

by matthaggs on Oct 26, 2007 8:36 PM EDT up 0 recs

IPK the best of the trinity?

Don't bogart the weed you're smokin', man!

Fear the Evil Empire

by pfistyunc on Oct 22, 2007 2:20 PM EDT up 0 recs

Mark my words, pfisty

Talk to me in 3-5 years. I know what I see, and he's got the goods upstairs.

"Baseball is the background music of my life." -George Will

by Ronster22 on Oct 23, 2007 12:35 PM EDT up 0 recs

I hope you are right

I am not saying that he isn't a good prospect, just that he isn't in the class of the other two.

Fear the Evil Empire

by pfistyunc on Oct 23, 2007 12:41 PM EDT up 0 recs

Can see that ... but

He strikes me as (and this is a stretch, but bear with me) a young Maddux. His ball has incredible movement and his k/bb ratio is great.

I'd actually rank the three: Joba, IPK, Hughes.
I wanna see Joba's changeup. He's got two dominating pitches, but he needs three to be a superstar. IPK, has hellacious movement, great control and the smarts; Hughes throws hard, but his ball is straight.

"Baseball is the background music of my life." -George Will

by Ronster22 on Oct 23, 2007 12:55 PM EDT up 0 recs

Curveball

His curveball is superior to his changeup. Though I'm sure his change will be major league average at the least.

River Ave. Blues
Yanks and prospects

by PinstripePowerhouse on Oct 25, 2007 12:37 PM EDT up 0 recs

Not both Wang and IPK

Especially if we don't get Pettitte back.

"Have faith in the Yankees, my son. Think of the great DiMaggio."

by jscape2000 on Oct 20, 2007 11:41 PM EDT 0 recs

Melky is.......

very popular and a big part of the youth movement.

And aren't Wang & IPK two of our better pitchers?

I hate too much change. All this crap is giving me agida!

by JARNJ3 on Oct 21, 2007 1:31 AM EDT 0 recs

While it would be great to have

Santana in the mix and I believe that his addition would raise hopes for a more fruitful run in the playoffs next season, I hope that the Yankees are taking a close look at the ALCS this year and realizing that one way to beat a team with two "aces" is to hit the shit out of the ball and score a ton of runs against them anyway.

Everything looks nicer when you win. The girls are prettier. The cigars taste better. The trees are greener. --Billy Martin

by garp on Oct 21, 2007 2:34 AM EDT 0 recs

wrong.

Yankees hit thr shit out of the ball don't they? And how did that work out for them against the 2 aces?

The Indians lost because of Beckett, a bull pen that collapsed and both of their aces shitting the bed in the ALCS.

None of which has to do with add more offense.

by KevinV on Oct 22, 2007 9:03 AM EDT up 0 recs

Obviously you were watching

the bizarro playoffs because I don't remember the Yankees hitting the shit out of Sabathia or Carmona. They had Sabathia on the ropes but let him off the hook.

Also, there is no need to "add" more offense, just a need for the offense that they have to make a fucking appeareance during the playoffs.

Everything looks nicer when you win. The girls are prettier. The cigars taste better. The trees are greener. --Billy Martin

by garp on Oct 22, 2007 12:53 PM EDT up 0 recs

Offense in the playoffs

Also, there is no need to "add" more offense, just a need for the offense that they have to make a fucking appeareance during the playoffs.

And how do you propose the front office do this?

by Willton on Oct 22, 2007 3:46 PM EDT up 0 recs

I was talking about the hitters.

The front office can't do anything about the playoffs. It is up to the team that got there to perform to their abilities at that point. It's a crapshoot. That is why Jeff Weaver is a better post season pitcher than Wang at this point.

Everything looks nicer when you win. The girls are prettier. The cigars taste better. The trees are greener. --Billy Martin

by garp on Oct 22, 2007 5:07 PM EDT up 0 recs

I like the trade

To get the best pitcher in baseball, you have to give up a lot. IPK is not nearly the prospect that many people think he is, but losing Wang would be pretty tough. He shits the bed in big games but he is a very consistent, reliable starter.

Fear the Evil Empire

by pfistyunc on Oct 21, 2007 7:51 AM EDT 0 recs

Its tough for me

to wrap my arms around too. We have Wang till 2012 when he hits free agency. He hasn't even hit arbitration yet. He's exactly what the Twins would want because he is cheap reliable and young.

I kinda want the same thing.

Eleven wins in October...

by Edwantsacracker on Oct 21, 2007 10:40 AM EDT up 0 recs

Disagree

I think before it's all done, Kennedy is the best of the bunch. I think you are right about Wang, but I wouldn't do the trade.

"Baseball is the background music of my life." -George Will

by Ronster22 on Oct 22, 2007 11:59 AM EDT up 0 recs

What makes you think that?

His range of pitches? Something you like better about his motion?

"Have faith in the Yankees, my son. Think of the great DiMaggio."

by jscape2000 on Oct 22, 2007 2:54 PM EDT up 0 recs

Please

Because IPK doesn't throw smoke you are writing him off? The guy is intelligent and knows how to pitch because he doesn't throw smoke.

He's the real deal.

"Baseball is the background music of my life." -George Will

by Ronster22 on Oct 23, 2007 12:37 PM EDT up 0 recs

He's not a blower, but....

ah, flashback!!

Fear the Evil Empire

by pfistyunc on Oct 23, 2007 12:40 PM EDT up 0 recs

Ah, yes ...

One of my all-time faves. The difference: Igawa complimented his non-blower status by being a non-thinker. And to borrow a line from Timbuk 3, with $40XL in yen, "his future's so bright he has to wear shades."

"Baseball is the background music of my life." -George Will

by Ronster22 on Oct 23, 2007 2:48 PM EDT up 0 recs

The difference

Hughes and Joba clearly have higher ceilings. If everything pans out for them (and it rarely does), they're future aces.

IPK, though, is a bit more projectable. You know what he's got, and you know it fits the mold of a No. 3 starter. So what he lacks in stuff he makes up for in reliability.

They were saying it when the guy was drafted: His ceiling might not be high, but he'll be major league ready soon and he can sit in the middle of your rotation for years.

River Ave. Blues
Yanks and prospects

by PinstripePowerhouse on Oct 23, 2007 3:08 PM EDT up 0 recs

I think this is too much

I'd trade any 2 of these 3 and a minor league prospect.

Let's hit the gym and get ready for spring.

by Cbeck3 on Oct 21, 2007 9:58 AM EDT 0 recs

Ridiculous

Use money that would have gone to Rocket and Torre. Why lose a two time 19 game winner and hot prospect like kennedy. Absurd!

"Sports don't build character, they reveal it." - Haywood Hale Broun.

by StrappedYankee on Oct 21, 2007 12:01 PM EDT 0 recs

You're assuming Santana hits free agency

If some other team trades for Santana and locks him up in a long-term, expensive contract, the Yankees will have never received that opportunity. I'm not saying that trading those guys for Santana is a good idea, but that is the tradeoff.

by Willton on Oct 21, 2007 4:17 PM EDT up 0 recs

I have a hard time believing

Santana will not test the FA market when he'll likely get the richest contract in history for a pitcher.

I'd love to see the Yanks get Santana, but I'd rather wait until next year when they can sign him outright and not have to give up young talent or Wang in return.

by anaconda on Oct 21, 2007 4:24 PM EDT up 0 recs

Someone.

Someone will pay the twins what they want.

Sanatan is the best pitched in baseball.

Someone will trade for him with the condition of a signing window and lock him up for the next 8
years.

You would give up having he best pitcher in the world for Wang, MK and IK?

Aces win championships. It is silly to go for cheap youth when you have the luxury of paying for the best there is. You are forgetting what teh Yankees' real advantage is. It is not history and pretige. The advantage is money. Use it to buy they best there is. If you don't then you don't understand why you lost and why you will continue to lose.

Spend the money on the best there is, not just the best available at the position you have a hole at at the moment.

by KevinV on Oct 22, 2007 9:13 AM EDT up 0 recs

Aces don't win championships

If that were the case, the Red Sox and Pedro would have won the WS before 2004. He was the best pitcher in baseball but it hardly mattered in the postseason because the rest of the rotation wasn't up to par.

It doesn't do your team any good if you have an "ace" along with three crap starters for the postseason.

Review the Yankees' postseason success of the late 1990s. They won because they had far better pitching depth than any of their opponents.

Several of their opponents had the better shutdown ace, but the Yanks won the series because of their 2-4 starters and Mo to close it.

by anaconda on Oct 22, 2007 11:03 AM EDT up 0 recs

That's because

their 2-4 starters would have been aces on any other team: '96 had Key and Pettitte. '98 had Wells, El Duque and Pettitte, '99 & '00 had Cone, Pettitte and El Duque, but not so much Cone in the latter.

You need a dominant pitcher who can strike people out and doesn't walk a lot of people. See: 2006-Chris Carpenter; 2005- Pick One of Chicago's starters; 2004-Pedro/Schilling; 2003: Josh Beckett; 2002: Lackey; 2001: Schilling/Johnson.

Chien-Ming Wang+Phil Hughes+Ian Kennedy+Joba Chamberlain = the future

by marcbouch9 on Oct 22, 2007 7:18 PM EDT up 0 recs

I beg to differ

Those guys weren't aces. Key was a solid pitcher but no ace.

They were horses who ate innings and were far better as a group than any other team's rotation.

They did their jobs by keeping the Yanks in games until the offense exploited their other team's weakness - which was often the bullpen.

Outside of Cone earlier in his career, none of those guys were strikeout pitchers. Of course, Clemens was a strikeout pitcher but he didn't come along until 1999.

by anaconda on Oct 23, 2007 1:04 AM EDT up 0 recs

Key

was an ace. Being the best pitcher on back-to-back WS teams is enough qualification for that. Wells in 1998 was ace-worthy. Pettitte may never have been an ace, but was always the best #2 in baseball. 88 wins and roughly a 4.00ERA in 5 years is impressive. El Duque was as good as anyone's #2 from 98-00, but was better than anyone's ace in the postseason.

While an "ace" may not be needed, depth at starting pitching is a must. Santana gives you that.

Chien-Ming Wang+Phil Hughes+Ian Kennedy+Joba Chamberlain = the future

by marcbouch9 on Oct 24, 2007 7:36 PM EDT up 0 recs

Not exactly

Check your stats. Key was only 13-13 in 1992 while Jack Morris won 21 games and Juan Guzman won 16 games for that team.

Again, I'm not trying to rip Key because he was a very solid pitcher throughout his career. But he was not an ace for those clubs any more than Wang is an ace for the Yanks now.

Besides, his effectiveness with the Yanks in 1996 was a far cry from what he was during his prime with the Jays. He just wasn't the same pitcher, just like the Roger Clemens the Yanks had in 2003 was a far cry from the Rocket in 1986.

You're right about one thing -- El Duque was a phenomenal #2 in the rotation. But he was not in the same class as the shutdown aces on other clubs like Maddux, Smoltz, Kevin Brown in 1998, Pedro, Johnson, Schilling, etc.

Wells was also a very good pitcher with a rubber arm but you can put him int he same category as El Duque.

You partially made my point for me. All of these guys were very good pitchers, but they weren't aces. However, when you compare the depth they provided in the rotation against every other club, it's not a coincidence that the Yanks had such an enormous advantage against the other team's 2-4 starters in the postseason.

That is why they won during their dynasty more than any other reason.

by anaconda on Oct 25, 2007 9:01 AM EDT up 0 recs

Key

I don't want to belabor the point, but Key is an ace in my opinion for much of his career and may not have won as much as Morris or Guzman in 1992, but pitched to a better ERA. In 1994, Key should have won the Cy Young.

I think we are spoiled in that we have had what most teams consider an ace as 2-4. Wells went to Toronto and became an ace. There are a number of pitchers out there who are #1 starters for teams that wouldn't be a #1 on our team, but that doesn't mean they aren't worthy of the "ace" label. I mean, "ace" really means the best pitcher on your team and I think you could have picked from 4 on those Yankee teams.

Chien-Ming Wang+Phil Hughes+Ian Kennedy+Joba Chamberlain = the future

by marcbouch9 on Oct 25, 2007 1:39 PM EDT up 0 recs

An Open Letter to Brian Cashman

Please, from the depths of my soul, do not sign Aaron Rowand. Rowand is the most recent example of the "contract year" phenomena. Specualtion is he'll ask for 5/$80M. Let someone else make that mistake.

Sincerely,

Everyone with a pulse and brain

PS - If you can keep Pettitte, we'll talk about Santana

Chien-Ming Wang+Phil Hughes+Ian Kennedy+Joba Chamberlain = the future

by marcbouch9 on Oct 21, 2007 12:24 PM EDT 0 recs

Enclosure

Note the following resumes:

Gary Matthews Jr.
Adrien Beltre
Carl Pavano
Edgardo Alfonzo

by Willton on Oct 21, 2007 4:36 PM EDT up 0 recs

and

you forgot to add Jorge Posada

by malkmusisgod on Oct 21, 2007 6:34 PM EDT up 0 recs

Slightly different

Jorge Posada would have been the best free agent catcher on the market if he had had an average season.

Eleven wins in October...

by Edwantsacracker on Oct 22, 2007 12:18 AM EDT up 0 recs

Correct

5/80 for Rowand is exactly the sort of stupid contranct that got the yankees in to this mess.

They make moves like that at their own peril, it will not work out for them.

by KevinV on Oct 22, 2007 9:17 AM EDT up 0 recs

A bridge too far

I'm a big advocate for going after Santana but Melky, Wang & IPK is too much to give up. Throw in another prospect instead of IPK, and I'll think it over.

I always feel pressure. What I don't have is fear. -- El Duque

by LateInningRelief on Oct 22, 2007 8:29 AM EDT 0 recs