Discussion Point

Wow

Put your heavy armor on because tomatoes are about to be thrown at you from every direction.

In all seriousness, I wouldn't trade Joba or Hughes for anyone at this point.

I've made my argument about acquiring Santana pretty clear already so I don't have to rehash it again.

by anaconda on Oct 29, 2007 3:31 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Gotta keep Joba

He has the highest overall ceiling. I think IPK's value is immensely overrated so I wouldn't care about parting with him. To me, if they could sell high on him and Melky that would be ideal.

Fear the Evil Empire

by pfistyunc on Oct 29, 2007 3:33 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I totally agree

But that means we'd have to go after Torri Hunter or Aaron Rowand or some other outfielder. I don't think putting Damon back in CF and Matsui in LF for every game is going to cut it.

by SenorSwanky on Oct 29, 2007 9:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

You are right

You are right we can not put Damon back in the outfield. We have to find the right situation that we can trade him. Maybe the Braves or the Marlins they both have a need for a CF.

by imyrick on Oct 30, 2007 9:10 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Damon for Crede. I'd do that. I also wonder if Detroit goes after Arod and gets him if they will dump Inge for nothing. He had a bad year last year but is an above-average fielding 3B. Reminds me a bit of Scotty B over at 3B. They may be happy just to cut salaray at that point. 3 years left at $6M per and he's 30.

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

by marcbouch9 on Oct 30, 2007 12:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

That would be nice

They really need to move Damon I just dont see him as an option in the OF next year. Crede would be a piece in return.

by imyrick on Oct 30, 2007 1:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Crede

Is coming off back surgery (only 47 games in 2007). He doesn't walk a lot, but does K a lot either. Career year in 2006 (.829OPS). I may be wrong, but I think he is still arbitration eligible and will turn 30 in April. Figure he would come pretty cheap for 2008 thanks to the 47 games in 2007.

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

by marcbouch9 on Oct 30, 2007 3:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Big

brass cojones. Did I spell that right?
You make sense up to the point you say we should trade Joba!
With how quickly Joba became a fan fave, the Yankee brass would have to do something pretty spectacular to bounce back from such a move.
Won't Girardi use him for 300 innings no matter what Joba's experience is? Isn't that the story on Girardi?
Why not just wait and try to sign Santana next year?
Why not take the risk, which seems small, and see if Joba continues his success?
Rotation:Wang, Hughes, IPK, Mussina, Chamberlain, ?.
So what if we don't win it all next year. Let the Sox have some fun for a while!

by costa on Oct 29, 2007 3:46 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Let the Sox have some fun!

Who sounds crazy now?

Seriously, the Yankees will not close Yankee Stadium with a whimper. Part of the reason trading Wang or Hughes for Santana doesn't make sense is it only replaces a solid 200 innings with a stellar 200.

If Pettitte retires we're going to need a big gun at the front end of this young rotation. Trading Joba is the only way to get that gun.

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

by jscape2000 on Oct 29, 2007 3:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The stadium

Good point, I didn't think about that.
I wouldn't say you sound crazy because I don't think you do. Apologies if I inferred it.

by costa on Oct 29, 2007 3:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

"let the sox have some fun"

"who cares if we don't win it all next year"

sounds like a budding manny ramirez.

but i do agree with him that we have to hold onto Joba.. andI truly beleive the with the offseason the front office is having, letting Joba go is not high on their list.

santana could be had by mid-season for less, and next year for nothing (except a lot of $$).

Well, baseball was my whole life. Nothing's ever been as fun as baseball. -Mickey Mantle

by NumberSeven on Oct 29, 2007 3:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

agreed

on the santana part for sure. i don't know if santana is worth pursuing right now - this moment - but after next yr when he's a free agent maybe?

i love new york

by cotob2002 on Oct 29, 2007 5:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

A-Rod?

I guess from the opposite dugout the last thing I want to see is the Yankees getting a good pitching staff together in the off-season since even without A-Rod the Yankees would be a very good offensive team. I'm not sure about the technicalities of this, but won't A-Rod leaving create a large amount of cash that the team can use to buy pitchers without trading current staff?

Lurking Red Sox Fan

by B Cap on Oct 30, 2007 5:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Keep Joba, several reasons.

Very few burst on the scene like he did.

If we resign Andy we have. Wang, Andy, Moose, Joba, Hughes, IPK and we still have prospects.

I think you are more pessimistic about Joba's innings than I am. I am sure that they will be careful with him, but not as careful as you suggest.

I love him for confidence and competitiveness.

I think our biggest pitching need is in the bullpen.

If we have to part with anyone I'd rather go with left hand hitting position players. Our lineup is out of balance and that is a real weakness.

Meanwhile you are right on target with wanting pitching not front line offense. Get relief or get starters and put some of the trinity in the pen.

Let's not forget to stock the bench this year.

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

by Cbeck3 on Oct 29, 2007 3:51 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I cannot believe this

You're advocating doing the very thing that got us into this mess: Trading prospects for veterans.

I'm a huge Santana fan, but I can't help but point out that his slash stats have risen every year since 2004. That, and Joba is freakin' six or seven years younger.

If Joba stays healthy, he's our future ace. You don't trade that away.

River Ave. Blues
Yanks and prospects

by PinstripePowerhouse on Oct 29, 2007 3:56 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

agree absolutely

this was our big argument against Yankee trades for years...develop the system, protect the youth...and then to argue to throw it away?

NO.

Keep Joba.

With all the changes we need some electricity and someone the fans ADORE and that's Joba.

He's got them whaddyacallit? Intangibles. :)

"The secret of managing is to keep the guys who hate you away from the guys who are undecided." -Casey Stengel

by bxgrl1 on Oct 29, 2007 6:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Someone the fans adore?

Seriously, does that really matter? I'll take a team of jerks as long as they win.

By the way, does a player have intangibles just because we say he has intangibles? Yeesh....

by Willton on Oct 29, 2007 9:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

The players with "intangibles" and "heart" are the ones who are short on things like talent and athleticism. I would rather win a ring with 25 egotistical, mercenary douchebags than make the playoffs with 25 nice guys.

Fear the Evil Empire

by pfistyunc on Oct 29, 2007 9:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Intangibles and Heart

are words used often with Jeter. And Pettitte. And Schilling. And O'Neill.

You see a pattern?

You'd probably have to back to 1986 to find a team of "egotistical, mercenary douchebags" that won anything in baseball. It just doesn't work that way anymore.

by matthaggs on Oct 29, 2007 11:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

So if a player is on a winning team,

he has intangibles and heart? And if he's on a losing team, he has no heart and lacks intangibles? Is this how we determine who has intangibles -- by whether his team wins or not?

By the way, what intangibles do these players have? How do they effect run scoring and run prevention? I only ask because, well, baseball is won by scoring more runs than the other guy. So how do intangibles help the team score more runs than the other guy?

You'd probably have to back to 1986 to find a team of "egotistical, mercenary douchebags" that won anything in baseball. It just doesn't work that way anymore.

Why not?

by Willton on Oct 29, 2007 11:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Jeez

start watching some games and stop reading about them.

Guys that are good, talented players and do all of the right things, i.e. give themselves and their team every opportunity to win games - those guys tend to be on winning teams. There are exceptions both ways, but it sure seems to work out that way.

As for the 1986 thing, you will laugh, but there is something to this chemistry thing in baseball. Over 162 games, in front of the media scrutiny these guys are under today, I would think getting along with one another - in addition to talent obviously - would certainly aid a team's chances of winning. Why is that such a ridiculous notion for you to entertain?

Just look at the teams that have won since then. From the Twins to the Yankees to the (gulp) Red Sox, etc.

by matthaggs on Oct 30, 2007 12:29 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

You didn't answer the question

start watching some games and stop reading about them.

I do watch games. What I don't do is read in some morality to them that does not exist.

Guys that are good, talented players and do all of the right things, i.e. give themselves and their team every opportunity to win games - those guys tend to be on winning teams. There are exceptions both ways, but it sure seems to work out that way.

That's not answering the question. What are "all the right things" and how do they "give themselves and their team every opportunity to win games"? What are these intangibles and what do they do to help a team win?

As for the 1986 thing, you will laugh, but there is something to this chemistry thing in baseball. Over 162 games, in front of the media scrutiny these guys are under today, I would think getting along with one another - in addition to talent obviously - would certainly aid a team's chances of winning. Why is that such a ridiculous notion for you to entertain?

I'm not saying that team chemistry is not a good thing. I'm sure that players do benefit from enjoying their coworkers. But when you consider that a baseball is largely an individualized sport, especially with regard to pitching and hitting, I find that team chemistry is not important.

Moreover, I'm of the belief that team chemistry is an effect of winning, not a cause of it. Players tend to be in good spirits when they are successful. Players don't tend to be successful merely because they are in good spirits.

by Willton on Oct 30, 2007 12:54 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm still waiting for an answer.

by Willton on Oct 30, 2007 6:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Banging my head against the wall, but...

Intangibles are fundamental baseball skills that many players just don't exhibit anymore. Playing the game properly, combined with talent, enables a team to win more games. By "properly" I mean baserunning, fielding, situational hitting (you refer to this skill as luck, which is what you call everything that you can't put a number on).

Perhaps intangibles is the wrong word, but finding star players willing/able to do all of these things well is hard. Teams that have more of these players win more games.

Supremely talented one-dimensional players like Manny are the exception, not the rule on winning teams.

by matthaggs on Oct 30, 2007 10:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Wrong: Situational hitting is quantifiable.

This is why we have hitting splits. Baserunning and fielding are also quantifiable (just ask Dan Fox and Clay Davenport) and can be measured as to how they affect run scoring and run prevention. Those are not intangibles. They are in fact inherently tangible.

If that's what you call intangibles (that which is inherently tangible), then I guess I'm right: true intangibles don't exist and don't matter.

Way to state a truism: finding star players is hard, and teams that have more star players than other teams tend to win more games. Gosh, really? Thanks, Buddha, that was very insightful.

by Willton on Oct 30, 2007 11:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

God

I know your undies are in a twist about losing ARod and all of his glorious numbers. Sorry if I upset you.

I am ending this conversation to preserve what is left of my mental health.

Fyi, baseball is played on field with human beings, not on a monitor loaded with numbers.

You should root for NASA instead of the Yankees.

by matthaggs on Oct 31, 2007 1:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I do root for NASA

and also for team USA NML (National Math League). Last year they lost a heart breaker Problem 7 to China 3-2 in extra quantifications!

Seriously though, scouting has value and the psychological analysis isn't something that shows up in numbers. But (good) numbers tell us truths when our eyes deceive us. And these guys have been playing baseball their entire lives, what degrees of seperation can intagiables provide that aren't already evident in the numbers?

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

by jscape2000 on Oct 31, 2007 2:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I hear you

I embrace stats when used responsibly, the way you do, and the way guys like Pinstripe do.

This dude Econo often sprays them around like he has lost control of a machine gun and just hopes to hit something. He is doing guys that use them correctly a disservice.

by matthaggs on Oct 31, 2007 4:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Huh?

Fear the Evil Empire

by pfistyunc on Oct 31, 2007 8:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Nice hyperbole

Care to give us an example of my reckless use of stats?

by Willton on Oct 31, 2007 9:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

See Cano, Robinson

Instead of crunching numbers, watch the kid swing the bat.

There are times when your eyes don't lie.

by matthaggs on Oct 31, 2007 10:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

And how is that a reckless use of stats?

How is that, as you so eloquently put it, "[losing] control of a machine gun?" Do you even remember what I said about Cano?

by Willton on Nov 1, 2007 1:30 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not sure

I guess using stats recklessly is pointing out that stats don't exist to measure those glorious intangibles.

Fear the Evil Empire

by pfistyunc on Nov 1, 2007 8:19 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Because

Instead of watching the guy hit ropes all over the damn field, you kept harping on his BABIP or something like that to suggest his numbers would drop off. The crux of the argument was "don't let your eyes fool you, this guy is not the hitter he appears to be. I have numbers to prove it." Well in a way you're right, he's better.

And then you (It was a long time ago but I think it was you - if not I apologize) used the same rationale to show that Melky would turn out to be a better hitter than Cano.

by matthaggs on Nov 1, 2007 10:13 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

And what happened to his numbers?

They dropped off! Did you see his AVG drop from .342 last year to .306 this year? His OBP and SLG also dropped. And why did that happen? Because fewer of Cano's batted balls found holes in the defense. Hence, a drop to a more sustainable BABIP and a drop in his batting average, OBP, and slugging percentage.

In fact, Cano was having a really rough year until mid-July, hitting only .269/.308/.417 through July 14. After that he took off, hitting .351/.406/.573 til the end of the season, which I thought was quite unexpected. Regardless, his averages at the end of the year did not match his rates from last year. So while you claim I'm being as reckless as a novice with an automatic weapon, you are way off. I don't think I was being irresponsible at all with my use of stats in predicting a drop off, especially when I ended up being right.

What I did not expect was a rise in walks from Cano. Usually hitters don't magically gain plate discipline and start walking more often in one season, especially when they walk as little as Cano did last year. So I don't think it was at all unreasonable to think that Cano's poor discipline would not improve this season. Certainly, I was wrong, but not unreasonable.

As for Melky, yeah, I ended up being wrong. But I had no reason to believe that Melky would actually be worse this year than he was last year, especially in the walks department. That came as a total surprise. That was a case of me being wrong, not irresponsible.

by Willton on Nov 1, 2007 5:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Bad idea

You will not get a return on JUST Joba that would justify dealing him. If he really is as great a prospect as a lot of people hype him to be, it is not worth trading him for a 200IP inning eater.

Make no mistake, that is all you would get for him. You might be able to swing someone like Dontrelle Willis from FLA if you include some other non trinity prospects, but that hardly qualifies as a sure title clincher for you.

The problem with your thought is the typical NYY way of thinking that gets you in situations like this. You need to think you need to do everything to win it all next year. The NYY are not 1 piece away from a title. If they feel this kid is the future, you don't trade that unless it is to get you over the top or to get you a sure thing top level player. If they lose AROD they are not even a contender in their division, let alone the AL.

The NYY are OLD and falling apart. If your one single burning goal is to try to win a title in 2008, instead of building to be competitive in the long run, you go and pay what it takes to get Santana. He is a sure thing, prospects are not.

I realize you think your prospects are super duper special, but they aren't. They might be good, the might be great or they might flop. You don't know. You know what to expect from Santana. We will produce in 2008, the rooks may or may not. So what if you'll have to pay him 20M/year? You're the f'ing NYY what do you care?

The poor teams go to young players out of necessity, not because they are better.

by KevinV on Oct 29, 2007 4:14 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

so...

are you saying we should or should not trade Joba? And believe me, the Marlins would be shitting their pants if we offered Joba for the already-washed-up Dontrelle. As for the Yankees being 1-piece away from the championship? I sure think they are. I see no reason this team can't with it all next year (assuming a relatively decent replacement for A-Rod.) Now, that doeesn't mean I want to mortgage the bright future on next year by taking a possible 1 year rental in Santana. However it does mean that the Yankees should do whatever they can to put the best possible team on the field next year, 2 years from now, and 3 years from now.

"It's great to be young and a Yankee"

by stillmonster on Oct 29, 2007 4:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Rental

I would not advocate the trade of Joba for a 1 year rental of Santana for the NYY. The NYY, unlike many teams are always in contention because of their money. They do not need to mortgage the future to make a run in 2008. This is much different thatn a team like the Indians who have a limited championship window with their current crop of stars, notably CC.

But, if you could lock up Santana to a long term deal, I would advocate trading Joba and much more. You could replace Joba's production with a free agent. You can not to the same with Santana.

by KevinV on Oct 30, 2007 9:42 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Two points

1) "The NYY are OLD"
Average hitter: 30.6
Average pitcher: 31.4
Those ages are weighted by ABs and IP, so the pitcher age is going to drop a lot with full seasons from IPK and Hughes plus no inning to Roger.

Bos 30.1, 31.1; Cle 28.0, 29.0; LAA 28.5, 28.4.

I agree, the Yankees are the oldest of this year's AL playoff crop, but they are hardly ancient or falling apart. Despite a rash of hamstring injuries, only Giambi was hurt for a significant portion of the season.

2) Yes, I do think our prospects are super duper special. I know that not everyone agrees; that is precisely why I would trade Joba (if I decided the best course was to complete a trade). Of our 10 best prospects Joba is the only one with enough credibility for another GM to say "We made a good deal" to his fanbase.

This also addresses Powerhouse's response- I'm not advocating a trade, but if we decide a trade is the best way to go then it's Joba we should trade. If we're playing to win in 2009 we should keep all the pitchers. If we have to win in 2008 then we have to gamble on some trades.

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

by jscape2000 on Oct 29, 2007 4:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

noooooooooooooo

I really respect you but I think this is off the wall. said with the deepest of affection :)

"The secret of managing is to keep the guys who hate you away from the guys who are undecided." -Casey Stengel

by bxgrl1 on Oct 29, 2007 6:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Aww

Well when you put it that way...

I do think it's outside the box, but (again if) if we're going to go after a ring in 2008 we need to gamble.

From a baseball standpoint it makes perfect sense- but I think the consensus here (and in the tabloids) is that Joba is the untouchable one, even though he'll have to be handled with kid gloves for the next couple of seasons.

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

by jscape2000 on Oct 30, 2007 3:04 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Refining of my point

RE #1:
What I meant more precisely is that they are burdened by a bunch of veterans that are depleted, retiring or not contributing like they should. They are taking up roster space and salary that could be better used by new FA or young players.

Player, 2008 Playoff age, Salary, Comment

Damon, 35, 13M - Decent, but not as expected.
Mussina, 40, 11.5M - Mediocre at best.
Farnsworth, 32, 5.6M - Mediocre at best.
Giambi, 37, 21M - Disaster.
Pavano, 32, 11M - Complete disaster.

Thats 5 roster spots and 62.1M on not that much.

You also have older, but good players
Posada, 37, 15M+
Rivera, 39, 15M+
Petite, 36, 16M - Considering retirement

All of these guys are on the decline of their careers. They are getting worse, not better. On top of that you get the heightened injury concerns for older players.

Add on to that Jeter, Abreu and Matsui being 34 and you have an old team, especially the position players.

RE #2:
My point was you can't know how good they will be now. You can not count on them to get you to a title in 2008.

Pesonally I would write off 2008 championship wise if I were the NYY. If they lose their manager, best player and possibly some of their top veterans, they will probably not contend in 2008 at all.

I would hold on to the prospects unless it were be to get someone special, like Santana or Cabrera. And even then it would only be if I could lock in the new guy long term.

I think that most fanbases are never sold on selling their stars to the NYY. I wouldn't worry about the PR perception of the prospects. Their positive would be minimal compared to the negative of losing their proven star. Believe me, I know how much it sucks to have to trade away your stars. I know analytically it is better than just getting compensatory draft picks, but it sucks.

by KevinV on Oct 30, 2007 10:49 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I believe

that this was precisely what Hank meant in his media day last week when he used the phrase "rebuild".

by detroit yankee on Oct 30, 2007 1:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

The Yankees have irreplaceable players- just like every other team. If Abreu collapses or Giambi gets hurt, we're in a huge hole. But we've started to get younger, and while our best position prospects are still a few years away, they're coming, so we're not under pressure to sign a huge free agent.

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

by jscape2000 on Oct 30, 2007 1:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Trades, etc.

Apparently the organizational meetings in Tampa the week following the ALDS game 4 loss to Cleveland was used for no other reason than to establish Hank and Hal as George's successors. Does anyone else feel like we have stumbled our way through the early part of this off-season? What is the power structure? Who has final say in personnel decisions? Is George included in these discussions at all, and if so why? The way we have operated thus far has been pitiful: we should have been more decisive with Torre and meanwhile paid greater homage to a true Yankee legend; we should have made plans in the event that A-Rod does not return, yet it seems like everyone, from the fans to our top execs, are reeling from this decision. We need to step back and see this situation for what it is: premature. It is way too early to make any drastic moves such as trading our top prospects, or to even consider such moves. Prospects offer more than just the promise of greatness and alot of times teams will spoil a player's promise by throwing him into the fire with haste. The Yankees have done a good job of insulating their most valued prospects from overexposure. Also, prospects are valuable because they are easy to trade with their small salaries and open availability to all 30 teams. Baseball is going through a youth movement right now and because of the massive contracts we had a tendency to dole out in the early part of the decade, we have not been a part of this at all. The Yankees are in a unique position when it comes to developing talent because often the best players are not drafted first, or in order for that matter. The less successful and usually smaller market teams draft higher but aren't always able to choose the best player because of his asked signing bonus. A player's asking price becomes a red flag for thrifty teams and these players fall to draft positions where they absolutely shouldn't appear if the whole process were solely based on skill. The Yankees can spend whatever they like on a player in the first-year entry draft, unlike 90% of MLB. Joba dropped in the draft because teams were afraid to take him and lose him because they couldn't meet his asking price. The Tigers have done this successfully over the last few years, as have the Red Sox and there is not reason the Yankees shouldn't be a part of this trend. I am sorry if I have rambled and thank any of you that made it through this ridiculous speech, but I see the state of our team and am worried. I haven't been able to connect with this team over the last few years and am finally able to rally around some youth like Cano, Melky, Hughes and Joba, and that excites me.

Oh yeah, if you think Joba is hot shit, wait until you get a full season from Hughes; he is going to be a top-10 pitcher next year (along with Wang, again).

by strelitm on Oct 29, 2007 9:06 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I agree about Hughes

I am not worried but perhaps I am spitting into the wind. While I think that they should have negotiated with Joe and re signed Mo and Jorge earlier, and I hope (PLEASE PLEASE) that Andy comes back, I really can't be broken hearted over Arod leaving.

Donnie said he wasn't ready for the manager position yet. Did he say that because he thought that the Steins would rely on Joe to bring him along one more year and it would weigh in their decision to keep Joe? I don't know but I find it hard to believe that they didn't somehow take that into consideration. Giradi can be brilliant...can he manage the team? We shall see...

We've been eliminated the first round 3 years in a row. We were eliminated by our arch rivals in 2004 who have gone on to win TWO world series while we've won NONE. We lost the series in 2001 and 2003. We were eliminated by the Angels in 2002.

Maybe we do need to shake things up. Maybe we need a new dynamic and a new energy.

Did everyone want to go to spring training with the same team we've had this year? Do you just want to cherry pick who we keep and who we get rid of?

Our team has looked good on paper and on payroll but it hasn't PERFORMED as it should.

I was reading Purple Row during the Series and they did nothing but compare the Sox to the Yankees of old...and what they're right about is that the Yankees don't look like the Yankees, the winning formula Yankees and haven't for a long time.

Maybe we need to infuse this team with new blood, new spirits, new outlooks.

Yes, I know it could all fall flat, but maybe there's something to it. At least we can hope so.

I want Mo and Po and Andy to come back and take part in it, but I'm not thinking anything is necessarily good or bad for the team. Unless we lose Hughes or Joba, I'm thinking we might put this thing back on track.

Call me Pollyanna.

"The secret of managing is to keep the guys who hate you away from the guys who are undecided." -Casey Stengel

by bxgrl1 on Oct 29, 2007 9:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Pollyanna,

you bring up some good points and I agree with you on a lot of things. With the exception of how Torre's contract was handled (the deal was fine, I think, and as a 1-year shot, not something that Bobby Cox hasn't had for the last few years), I don't see any notable mistakes thus far.

The reality is that at their age, Mo and Po would have been foolish to expect they would've been renewed before the season. And Joe wasn't going to get renewed at that point either.

I wish they'd treated Joe with more respect and made a bigger effort to bring him around to a contract that was really not that awful. Otherwise, A-Rod is a clod.

Now if the FO screws up Mo, Po & Andy and starts making some dumb trades, we'll revisit. But at this point, the FO is on target. Girardi v Mattingly is a toss-up, and I can come around to Little Joe. So let's see.

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

by LateInningRelief on Oct 29, 2007 9:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Mattingly

never said he wasn't ready to manage. That story was false.

by flipster on Oct 30, 2007 7:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

JOBA

He dropped in the draft because of weight issues and if I remember correctly I think he also had tendinitis in his elbow. He dropped something like 50lbs and the elbow problems have not returned. The same kind of thing happened to Dellin Betances, Betances said that if any other team drafts him he would not sign and go to college. He only said he would sign with the Yankees, otherwise we had no business getting either one of these guys. I think Dellin was suppose to go in the top 5 in the 1st round but slipped all the way to the Yanks.

by miracle96 on Oct 30, 2007 1:09 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It was a knee problem

that they were concerned about

Fear the Evil Empire

by pfistyunc on Oct 30, 2007 8:02 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

not the Yanks

The Yanks wanted him before the draft started and didn't think they had a shot at the time of the draft. The Yanks were taking the chance with him regardless of any issues with his health.

by miracle96 on Oct 31, 2007 5:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Don't trade Joba

I could part with Hughes or IPK but not both. I'd never get rid of Joba at this point.

And why go after someone like Santana who will cost us so much? And do you really think we could get him and get a contract extension at the same time?

Why not instead pursue Erik Bedard (strikeout manic), Aaron Harang, Scott Kazmir (another KO guy, if I'm not mistaken), Matt Cain, or Tom Gorzelanny? I'd love to have Bedard or Kazmir as a Yankee. I think they'd fit and replace Pettitte well. It'd even be worth pursuing them if Pettitte does stay around, just in case one of our starters goes down with an injury, as Pettitte may be prone to do. In that case, we can then move up IPK or Moose from long relief to a starter rather than having to promote someone like Clippard or DeSalvo automatically.

by SenorSwanky on Oct 29, 2007 9:20 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Here's why

Bedard, Kazmir, Cain and Gorzo are inexpensive aces that their respective teams will not want to give up so quickly, especially given their lack of depth in the rotation. It will take a considerable amount to pry those players from their respective teams, as they are not itching to trade those players like the Twins might be with Santana.

by Willton on Oct 29, 2007 9:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Actually...

...there's a rumor Bedard is on the trading block, along with Tejada and Roberts. I'd take any of them for a few years.

As far as the others, you might be right. But it's worth exploring.

by SenorSwanky on Oct 29, 2007 9:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Trades, etc.

Apparently the organizational meetings in Tampa the week following the ALDS game 4 loss to Cleveland was used for no other reason than to establish Hank and Hal as George's successors. Does anyone else feel like we have stumbled our way through the early part of this off-season? What is the power structure? Who has final say in personnel decisions? Is George included in these discussions at all, and if so why? The way we have operated thus far has been pitiful: we should have been more decisive with Torre and meanwhile paid greater homage to a true Yankee legend; we should have made plans in the event that A-Rod does not return, yet it seems like everyone, from the fans to our top execs, are reeling from this decision. We need to step back and see this situation for what it is: premature. It is way too early to make any drastic moves such as trading our top prospects, or to even consider such moves. Prospects offer more than just the promise of greatness and alot of times teams will spoil a player's promise by throwing him into the fire with haste. The Yankees have done a good job of insulating their most valued prospects from overexposure. Also, prospects are valuable because they are easy to trade with their small salaries and open availability to all 30 teams. Baseball is going through a youth movement right now and because of the massive contracts we had a tendency to dole out in the early part of the decade, we have not been a part of this at all. The Yankees are in a unique position when it comes to developing talent because often the best players are not drafted first, or in order for that matter. The less successful and usually smaller market teams draft higher but aren't always able to choose the best player because of his asked signing bonus. A player's asking price becomes a red flag for thrifty teams and these players fall to draft positions where they absolutely shouldn't appear if the whole process were solely based on skill. The Yankees can spend whatever they like on a player in the first-year entry draft, unlike 90% of MLB. Joba dropped in the draft because teams were afraid to take him and lose him because they couldn't meet his asking price. The Tigers have done this successfully over the last few years, as have the Red Sox and there is not reason the Yankees shouldn't be a part of this trend. I am sorry if I have rambled and thank any of you that made it through this ridiculous speech, but I see the state of our team and am worried. I haven't been able to connect with this team over the last few years and am finally able to rally around some youth like Cano, Melky, Hughes and Joba, and that excites me.

Oh yeah, if you think Joba is hot shit, wait until you get a full season from Hughes; he is going to be a top-10 pitcher next year (along with Wang, again).

by strelitm on Oct 29, 2007 9:25 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Slightly off topic

Am I the only one that is alarmed that Hank has inherited his dad's lust for the soundbite? His A-Rod "can go fuck himself" (I'm paraphrasing) quotes are 100% correct, but I am a little scared of the future media fodder that is going to be spewing out of the front office.

Fear the Evil Empire

by pfistyunc on Oct 29, 2007 9:35 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Yeah,

he has definitely been coming dangerously close to saying something that will light up the NY tabloids. But even though his Torre comment was kinda cloddish, the guy's sort of growing on me.

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

by LateInningRelief on Oct 29, 2007 9:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'd rather...

...see some fire like that, like the old George, than the lame PC statements ghost-written by Howard Rubinstein from the past few years. I hate what Hank did to Torre and some of the things he's said about picking a new manager, but he's dead-on about A-Rod. It needed to be said. Cashman's statement was a wuss-out.

by SenorSwanky on Oct 29, 2007 9:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

His contrasting Jeter and A-Rod

was well played. You know that stung The Fraud's ego.

by docgonzo on Oct 29, 2007 9:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

that was my response

It was like, "You can never walk a mile in his cleats....and now you never will. Tool." That is how I read it and I thought to myself, good for you. Bring up the one person that will make him toss and turn all night. You'll never be Jeter, dude. You have more talent but you'll never be loved in NY. Bwahhahahahahahaha

"The secret of managing is to keep the guys who hate you away from the guys who are undecided." -Casey Stengel

by bxgrl1 on Oct 30, 2007 7:08 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

A Rod's Problem

A Rod's problem is no matter where he goes is he is going to have to be the main attraction. Which means he has to be bigger than the team and the manager. I think that you would rather they put his name on the front of his Jersey and put the team on the back. Or remove it all together. A Rod you are a tremendous talent player but just as equally selfish.

I think that he realized even with the amazing year that he had this year. That the fans still loved Jeter, Torre and the rest of the guys just and as much or more than him. And he could not stand it.

by imyrick on Oct 30, 2007 9:23 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah!

Let's have another team owner that loves to alienate his manager and players. That's great for the Yankees!! Now free agents will want to come here for sure!! (ugh)

by Willton on Oct 29, 2007 11:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Remind me...

...which sports owner has won the most championships in history? Oh yeah. We've probably attracted more free agents than any team in history too because we're the fucking Yankees. Yeah, mouthing off can be a problem. But sometimes it's a good thing. I applaud him for what he said about A-Rod.

by SenorSwanky on Oct 30, 2007 1:24 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I sooo agree about Hank

I had hoped that we'd have someone with a little class and dignity running the show. Onewho wouldn't be stupid enough to say this is a transitional team. Now we have another version of King George, onloy dumber...Arggg.

by John Amato on Oct 30, 2007 1:06 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Trading Joba =

bad idea, imo.

Key reasoning NOT to trade him (of any of their current prospects): He is the only pitcher that has the ability to fill 3 separate roles: starter, reliever, closer; and he has the weapons to succeed in any of those roles. Now, he needs experience and innings.

Given the state of the pitching staff just adding Santana doesn't fix that problem alone. And trading away a kid who could be equally successful over the next 5-7 years (at a minimum) is repeating historical mistakes.

Santana is no doubt a terrific pitcher. But I'd rather win him in FA, if at all, and see the young pitchers rule 2008. They were much more fun to watch during the season/playoffs than any other player/s (midges notwithstanding).

And realistically, from a position perspective, we serious issues: 1B, 3B, RF (if Abreu doesn't come back), LF (assuming Matsui moves to DH role), CF (Melky is not the everyday CF of the future), and C (if Posada does not resign)...

If anything, the starting pitching staff for next year at least has the potential to be stable.

Given a rotation of:

Hughes
Joba
Wang
IPK
Moose/or another cheap acquisition
Pettitte (if he stays)

I think that would be fun to watch for a full season.

The rest of the positions are not stable, and if I recall correctly, we do not have the Farm system yet stocked there to bring up anyone -- do we?

So exchanging pitching for pitching is not in the best long term interests when the pitcher we give up in this scenario has long term potential and the team has so many significant holes to fill.

by detroit yankee on Oct 30, 2007 10:23 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Risk

I agree with much of what you say, but Santana is a much better option than Joba.

Santana is a proven ace #1 starter. He is still fairly young and will perform for years to come.

Joba has potential, but what if he flounders as a starter and a closer, but becomes an ace middle reliever. Is that more valuable that a #1 starter?

Even if he becomes a shut down closer, which he won't until Rivera leaves, is that more valuable than a #1 ace starter? I don't think so.

But I agree that pitching isn't your #1 long term worry. You need to get younger at just about every position.

by KevinV on Oct 30, 2007 10:58 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not disagreeing, necessarily

But Santana's AVG/OBP/SLG against have risen every year since 2004. Of course, that argument goes both ways, as he won the Cy in 2006 even though his slash stats were the highest they'd been in three years.

River Ave. Blues
Yanks and prospects

by PinstripePowerhouse on Oct 30, 2007 12:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

"Risk"

vs "reward" -- and in this case (with Joba), the reward is a pitcher with high flexibility who has already proven he can handle the pressure of the 7th inning on (and in playoff situations to boot).

Santana does not have the same flexibility. He is clearly an top starting pitcher. But once again we come back to the issue of do you trade away a what-might-have-been for a what-might-be?

I still think the yankees would be wise to keep Joba. And I suspect they will.

by detroit yankee on Oct 30, 2007 1:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Risk vs. Reward

The best possible outcome for Joba is to become like Santana. My point was if the NYY can buy much more certainty of having a Santana like pitcher.

I think it is likely that the NYY retain Joba too. But if they get the chance to package Joba for Santana, they should jump on that before the Twins can rethink it.

by KevinV on Nov 1, 2007 3:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

One bad thing

He has been very consistent over the past few years. The one bad thing i noticed in his 2007 stats was a big uptick in HR allowed (24 in 2006, 33 in 2007). But seeing as how his hits, BB and SO have been steady, I think its just a bit of bad luck.

by KevinV on Oct 30, 2007 12:53 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs