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 reply actions

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 reply actions

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 reply actions

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 reply actions

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 reply actions

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 reply actions

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 reply actions

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 reply actions

Ooh! Ooh! I know!

Um, win the division?

by Willton on Oct 23, 2007 12:33 AM EDT up reply actions

Bingo!!

Don Pardeau, tell him what he's won!

Fear the Evil Empire

by pfistyunc on Oct 23, 2007 7:13 AM EDT up reply actions

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 reply actions

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 reply actions

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 reply actions

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 reply actions

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 reply actions

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 reply actions

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 reply actions

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 reply actions

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 reply actions

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 reply actions

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 reply actions

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 reply actions

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 reply actions

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 reply actions

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 reply actions

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 reply actions

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 reply actions

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 reply actions

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 reply actions

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 reply actions

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 reply actions

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 reply actions

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 reply actions

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 reply actions

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 reply actions

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 reply actions

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 reply actions

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 reply actions

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 reply actions

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 reply actions

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 reply actions

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 reply actions

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 reply actions

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 reply actions

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 reply actions

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

ah, flashback!!

Fear the Evil Empire

by pfistyunc on Oct 23, 2007 12:40 PM EDT up reply actions

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 reply actions

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 reply actions

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 reply actions

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 reply actions

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 reply actions

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 reply actions

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 reply actions

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 reply actions

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 reply actions

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 reply actions

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 reply actions

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 reply actions

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 reply actions

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 reply actions

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 reply actions

and

you forgot to add Jorge Posada

by malkmusisgod on Oct 21, 2007 6:34 PM EDT up reply actions

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 reply actions

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 reply actions

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 reply actions

Prospects...

I realize that being a Yankees fan, you are not used ot dealing with prospects and young players.

This leads you to romanticize the ones you do get.

This leads you to over value them.

Those 3 for Santana is a steal.

Think about it, replace those 3 with Santana in the ALDS. Does the picture look a little better for the NYY?

by KevinV on Oct 22, 2007 9:20 AM EDT up reply actions

I like you

Those three are certainly a steal for Santana. So much of a steal that there's little chance Minnesota would accept it.

River Ave. Blues
Yanks and prospects

by PinstripePowerhouse on Oct 22, 2007 10:09 AM EDT up reply actions

Right.

If I were the twins, I would ask for Hughes, Cano and Melky.

That fills 3 opening day holes. SP, 2B and CF.

That might be a steep price to pay for the NYY but i think thats what it will take. If they don't pay that someone else will pay a similar price gladly.

by KevinV on Oct 22, 2007 1:16 PM EDT up reply actions

Another idea...

Wang/MK/IPK is clearly not enough.

What would you think of this idea? (This is assuming that the NYY get to sign Santana to a long term deal in some sort of negotiated window of time.)

Hughes+Cano+MK+Giambi+Cash (10M+ )

MIN gets for about what they pay for Santana Now:

All Star 2B.
High Ceiling SP Prospect.
Decent CF to replace Hunter.
Mediocre DH. (Better than what they have)

Yanks get for the cost of Giambi now:

The best pitcher in baseball
Unload a highly paid veteran they hate.

Obviously Cano is a big price, but the rest is nothing for Santana.

by KevinV on Oct 22, 2007 4:01 PM EDT up reply actions

I gotta pass on that

I know it sounds unreasonable, and it may be my internal bias talking. But I consider Cano untouchable.

He's 24 and he plays a premium position. And he is very good at the one thing that should be common among all good hitters: he hits the ball really freakin' hard.

Yes, I know that an ace like Santana is more valuable than a second baseman. Plus, the kicker for me is Hughes. I also know that Santana is a known quantity and Hughes is not, but Phil is seven years younger. That's forever in pitching years.

River Ave. Blues
Yanks and prospects

by PinstripePowerhouse on Oct 22, 2007 4:34 PM EDT up reply actions

I got to brush up

my typing skills. You beat me to the punch.

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

by jscape2000 on Oct 22, 2007 4:45 PM EDT up reply actions

I like VORP

Value Above Replacement Player. It measures how much a ball player helps his team win, set against a below average 'replacement player' (a la Miguel Cairo). The ranking is position dependent, so Melky is worth much more as a centerfielder than as a left fielder.

Johann Santana has averaged a 68.9 VORP (57.7, 79.6, 73.0) the last three seasons.

Wang has averaged 40 (48.5, 54.6, 16.8).
Cano has averaged 37.1 (40.5, 49.1, 21.6).
Melky has averaged 8.8 (9.8, 7.8).

Wang and Cano on average are as good as Santana at his best (which says a lot about what a phenomenal talent he is). But he's not worth both those guys, let alone both those guys and Melky or IPK.

And that's before we talk about age and projectibility.

If there's someone out there willing to pay that price for Santana, then it's like the $50 million Dice-K bid- just let it go and find a better deal someplace else.

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

by jscape2000 on Oct 22, 2007 4:44 PM EDT up reply actions

VORP

Well that's not the trade I proposed. The trade I proposed breaks down a little differently.

I'll assume Hughes will be good but not great year after year, say 20 VORP. You can't tell with prospects. He could be worth 70, he could be 0. Who knows?

Giambi has averaged 26.2 over the last 4 years. He is probably trending down.

Hughes+Cano+MK+Giambi+Cash (10M+ )

20.0 + 37.1 + 8.8 + 26.2 + 0 = 92.1 VORP

Santana is averaging 75.0 VORP over the last 4 years.

He is at his peak. He isn't likely to decline much over the next few years. By the end of the contract, who knows? This is about winning now, not 5 years from now. At any rate i think its a decent bet he will at least as good as Hughes even then.

That leaves you with 17.1 VORP to make up and 3 rosters spots to do it in. I think thats a pretty easy hole to fill when you have the cash the NYY do.

For example they could do the following deals :

DH: Barry Bonds, 1 year: VORP 40, easy.
CF: Mike Cameron, 2? Years: Vorp 15, easy.
2B: Replacement Vet, short deal: VORP 0.

Thats a total VORP of 130. 38 better than you were before. They could do a lot better than those guys too.

In addition, here is the new NYY rotation, assuming Petite comes back:

Santana, Petite, Wang, Mussina, Joba

Looks a lot better that 2007, doesn't it?

The deal make sense for MIN, they pick up net VORP , fill several holes for years to come and get a decent return for Santana.

The deal makes sense for NYY, they get denser VORP. Which is what you need if you are trying to build an uber team every year.

by KevinV on Oct 22, 2007 8:21 PM EDT up reply actions

VORP

is the fecal matter (for the kids!). Best stat to use in a case like this. I think what you have for Bonds is on the low end because not having to play the field every day will get him more ABs. And in case anyone hasn't noticed, when he plays, which was only 3 out of 4 games last year, he's still the most productive player in baseball.

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

by marcbouch9 on Oct 23, 2007 8:31 AM EDT up reply actions

totally agree

all wang, kennedy, melky are all replacable. Santana is not

by miracle96 on Oct 22, 2007 11:20 AM EDT up reply actions

Exactly right.

The NYY can find a person to replace the production of any of those 3 with out too much dificulty. There is no way for them to replace the best. Thats why Santana and Arod are the best use of $55M/year.

The NYY can afford to over pay for the best. Thats what they should do.

by KevinV on Oct 22, 2007 12:59 PM EDT up reply actions

Wang? A sinkerball pitcher in the Metrodome?

What a dumb post. This clinches it. On his best days, Wang's talent is for inducing ground balls. The kind that take off and bounce through the gaps on artificial turf.

Does anyone really believe that the Twins' management is that stupid?

Unless maybe they'd package him and send him elsewhere...

by django on Oct 22, 2007 11:57 AM EDT reply actions

Please, try to follow baseball

The Twins open a new open-air stadium in '09.

River Ave. Blues
Yanks and prospects

by PinstripePowerhouse on Oct 22, 2007 12:31 PM EDT up reply actions

lol

Eleven wins in October...

by Edwantsacracker on Oct 22, 2007 1:46 PM EDT up reply actions

I will try, if you will as well.

Touche. But it will be ready for Opening Day 2010, not 2009, according to the Twins' official website.

I suppose that they could just limit Wang to pitching on the road for two years. But the deal still makes no sense.

by django on Oct 22, 2007 3:26 PM EDT up reply actions

No, it doesn't

I've long said that there is no way Santana lands in NY without Hughes or Joba as part of a package.

River Ave. Blues
Yanks and prospects

by PinstripePowerhouse on Oct 22, 2007 4:31 PM EDT up reply actions

Best to let this play out.

If it looks like Santana will be in play this winter, the Yanks had best be a player. Nothing wrong with having a contingency plan or two in your back pocket if it looks like the Twins are ready to shop him to another team with the money to lock up a long-term deal. I can't live with the thought of him, Dice-K AND Beckett in Boston's rotation for the next 5 years. But it might not happen, and if it doesn't, I'd much rather hold on to what we have for a year and sign him as a FA in '09.

by django on Oct 22, 2007 5:05 PM EDT up reply actions

Well...

That's assuming he gets to FA.

If the NYY don't make a move to get him, someone else will. The Twins will not settle for draft picks if they can't sign him.

How would you feel if Boston Packaged Lester, Elsbury and a prospect for Santana?

Do you really want to be facing
Santana, Beckett, Dice-K, Buchholz, & Wakefield?

Do you really think you stand a chance with:
Petite (Maybe), Hughes, Wang, Mussina and Joba?

by KevinV on Oct 23, 2007 8:14 AM EDT up reply actions

No way he goes to Boston

without the laptop thief heading to Minny.

Fear the Evil Empire

by pfistyunc on Oct 23, 2007 9:32 AM EDT up reply actions

Just like there's no way he's in NY

Without Hughes or Joba in MN.

River Ave. Blues
Yanks and prospects

by PinstripePowerhouse on Oct 23, 2007 9:51 AM EDT up reply actions

Exactly

Fear the Evil Empire

by pfistyunc on Oct 23, 2007 9:53 AM EDT up reply actions

Ditto....

Santana will not be traded to the Yanks this offseason.

by anaconda on Oct 23, 2007 9:59 AM EDT up reply actions

Not dittoing me

I am not saying he won't be traded, just that he won't go to NYY or BOS without Minny getting Joba/Hughes or Buccholz respectively. He still might get moved.

Fear the Evil Empire

by pfistyunc on Oct 23, 2007 10:02 AM EDT up reply actions

I don't think so

I don't care if he is the best pitcher in the game. It's not about that.

The Yanks never had the best pitcher in the game during their last run of success. People put way too much stock into having star power like Santana.

The won't accomplish a damn thing if they have the best pitcher but the rest of the rotation sucks. Hughes and Joba are seven years younger than Santana and could fill the lack of depth they have needed since Clemens and Pettitte left after 2003.

I don't see Cashman trading away his best chips for a guy who will be a free agent this time next season. I just don't think it makes any sense.

by anaconda on Oct 23, 2007 10:12 AM EDT up reply actions

Your missing my point

I am just saying that Minny won't trade him to NY or Boston without getting Hughes/Joba or Buccholz respectively. I am not addressing the merits of the deal, just pointing out that your "ditto" comment did not accurately reflect my position.

Fear the Evil Empire

by pfistyunc on Oct 23, 2007 10:25 AM EDT up reply actions

No, I get it

I should have made it clear that I was adding my own addendum to the point already made.

by anaconda on Oct 23, 2007 10:31 AM EDT up reply actions

I agree

There is no way that you can make that trade if you have to include Joba.

by imyrick on Oct 24, 2007 11:17 AM EDT up reply actions

My thoughts

The Twins aren't going to be able to keep their stable of talent. Santana stands to rake in the biggest payoff, so they'll likely trade him midseason (unless the Twins are in contention).

I'm with you. I don't think we need to part with anyone. I think we sit back and wait. I do agree that we need to pounce when the time is right, though. He won't be 30 until March, 2009. I see nothing wrong with waiting.

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

by Ronster22 on Oct 23, 2007 12:48 PM EDT up reply actions

Wait. I should say

It would make sense if it's the best Minnesota is offered this winter. Getting Wang, IPK, and Melky is better than the two draft picks they'd get by letting him go (likely a late first rounder and a supplemental).

And holding onto him until the deadline isn't the best move, either. Santana is the kind of player who can fetch the most bounty in the winter, when teams have time to negotiate and figure things out. Trying to deal him at deadline time puts the pressure on, and there's a good chance that you either won't get as good a package, or a deal won't get done, meaning you're stuck with the draft picks instead of the three decent players.

River Ave. Blues
Yanks and prospects

by PinstripePowerhouse on Oct 22, 2007 4:37 PM EDT up reply actions

Can't believe

You of all people would support this. Melky is solid in center, and I see no viable replacements on the horizon. Wang? Okay he sucked the last 4-6 weeks, but he's a solid winner, and IPK? That's just insane. Do you want a rotation of Santana, Joba, Hughes, Mussina, Igawa.

The bottom 2/5ths scare the hell out of me.

Why not Santana, Wang, Joba, Hughes, IPK ...
and Melky in center.

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

by Ronster22 on Oct 23, 2007 12:52 PM EDT up reply actions

Ian freaken Kennedy

I like this kid, but stop pretending he is going to be great. I'm not worried about Joba ,but Hughes still has a lot to prove and Kennedy has barely pitched. Kennedny will rely on his control because he does not have lights out stuff (meaning Kennedy, best case senerio #4 starterand thats not for a couple years, just not sold yet on this kid). Hughes, I think can be a very solid #2 within a couple of years and a very productive #3 starter in 2008, but let be realistic. It would be a miracle if these three guys stay in the rotation as our #123 starters over the next 5 years. We still have other prospects, Betances(This kid is a monster and could be just as special as JOBA throws triple digits needs better command very young i think he's like 6'7), Humberto, Blackman, I dont think that group of Rasner,Karstens,DeSalvo are anything worth keeping. If their is chance of getting Sanata without giving up JOBA or Hughes take it and run.

by miracle96 on Oct 23, 2007 1:13 PM EDT reply actions

We signed Rolando Blackman?

Awesome. He might be a better prospect than Andrew Brackman.

Fear the Evil Empire

by pfistyunc on Oct 23, 2007 2:11 PM EDT up reply actions

same shit

blackman, brackman its gonna be a long offseason. I don't post much here because of all the wise guys and you seem to lead the pack. We all Yankee fans can we just get along

by miracle96 on Oct 23, 2007 2:15 PM EDT up reply actions

I would love to have Santana

I would to have Johan Santana but think it would be a better move if they tried to make a trade with the Florida Marlins for Miguel Cabrera. I am sure that we would have to pick some or most of his salary. The Marlins are realizing that you can have young talent but you still need a veteran in the club house. I just dont think that Abreu has the fire or the passion to play in New York.

by imyrick on Oct 25, 2007 10:50 AM EDT reply actions