Pinstripe Alley: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:

Around SBN: Want to help build SB Nation? We're hiring! Bar-right-arrows

Yankees ready to give up Hughes

Ya_tiny by bxgrl1 on

NY Daily News reports that after a spirited debate, Yankee front office is ready to package Hughes, Melky and one other minor league pitcher for Santana.  Apparently one person, presumably Cashman, had to be convinced but they were ready to pull the trigger.


The Yanks had declared Joba Chamberlain off limits, and the Twins told them that Ian Kennedy, the third of their three prized righthanders, wouldn't be enough. According to the club source, there was spirited internal debate in the organization via conference calls about whether to make Hughes available.

Among the prominent people on the calls were GM Brian Cashman in New York, and owner Hank Steinbrenner and superscout Gene Michael in Tampa. Though the club source wouldn't say who needed to be convinced, it is no secret that Cashman has wanted to build the team around young, homegrown players, and saw the three pitchers as the centerpiece.

In any case, the club finally agreed to put Hughes in a package that includes center fielder Melky Cabrera and at least one other lesser pitching prospect still to be negotiated, as of Friday night. And by doing so they believe they are the front-runners to land Santana, the two-time Cy Young winner.

With that development, the Yankees are the front runners in the Santana sweepstakes.  

I'm not happy about giving up Philly.  I'm really not.  I'm sorta on the fence about getting Santana only because so many big names have blown up in our faces before.  I'd rather lose giving the kids a chance than watch another bloated salary come in and not perform.  Hopefully I'm wrong and that doesn't happen.

0 recs | Comment 92 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

There's little danger of that
Santana's gonna be gold for at least 4 out of the 6 years.

None of his peripherals have trended down (except a slight increase in WHIP).  His K-rate, BB-rate, K/B, K/9,

Last year's ERA numbers were a fluke, since his hits & BB's changed very little over the 4 years.

He gave up more HRs than usual, his HR/F (Home Runs to Fly Balls ration) was at 15.6%

Anything significantly over 11% is considered to be caused by "luck".

Even ignoring all that, he was a two pitch pitcher all of the second half.  I think he just shut it down after the Twins basically did nothing to keep them in the race during the trading deadline.

He's never been injured, has been a machine for the last 4 years and his K rates against major leaguers is absolutely sick.

Oh... he's 28.  Not 38.  Haren's 27, Peavy's 26 or 27, so you're not going to get a better pitcher.

Also, a lot of pitchers (Glavine, Ryan, Johnson) etc, experienced a blip going into their 30s before entering their most dominant phase.

I don't know how Santana can be more dominant, but all trends are favorable.

That being said.  I would've loved a top 3 of Santana/Hughes/Joba.  Now its Santana/Joba/Kennedy, which isn't bad.  I hope the Yankees draft a pitcher and pay above slot again.

by randomize on Nov 30, 2007 9:29 PM EST   0 recs

Santana is 29 not 28
I don't care what his age is today if he's not going to throw his next pitch until after his 29th birthday.

Personally, I will hate this move if it turns out to be true.  I'd rather keep Hughes because it makes the most sense long term for this team.

Like A-Rod, Santana can't win a postseason series by himself.

by anaconda on Nov 30, 2007 9:35 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

Okay fine...
29.  

That doesn't really change anything.  

No injury history.

Sick peripherals.

His worst year (last year) was still better than nearly every pitcher out there.

Basically we're giving up Hughes + random parts (yes Melky and Horne count as random parts) for Santana.

If Santana can't win a series by himself, then neither can Hughes.

If we were giving up Hughes + Cano or Hughes + Kennedy, then you'd have an argument.

Its not the end of the world, although I would've preferred to hold on to Hughes :( and maybe gotten Haren for Kennedy +

by randomize on Nov 30, 2007 9:38 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

And I'll bet
it was that dumbass Hank that forced Cashman's hand.

He's impatient, pokes his nose everywhere and is going to run this team into the ground if he gets his way.  At least the Boss had enough sense to listen to Cashman sometimes.

I can't imagine how Cashman stands it... I guess the millions in salary help.

by randomize on Nov 30, 2007 9:40 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

Are you schizo?
Seems like you replied to yourself, contradicting what you had just said.

by SenorSwanky on Nov 30, 2007 10:14 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

A poem:
Roses are red
Violets are blue
I'm a schizophrenic,
And so am I.

by Willton on Nov 30, 2007 10:17 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

Lol..
No.

Basically I'm torn over the trade.

I feel that Hughes is going to be great and would've loved to see Santana in pinstripes with Kennedy/Melky/Horne going the other way.

On the other hand, I know that if the trade goes through the Yankees have the best SP in the game for a blue chip prospect, 4th OF and spare parts.

And the reply to myself was to add the bit about Hank Stienberner.  

by randomize on Nov 30, 2007 10:20 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

I think we all are
I mean, in July I would have given up anything and everything for Santana,  Now, I am struggling with the idea of Hughes going.  The facts are this: Santana is one of the best if not the best pitcher in baseball.  He's dominant and shows no signs of decline; I attribute the slight increase in peripherals to an improved AL Central.  Hughes should be a phenomenal starter for many years, but the chances of him being better than Santana over the next 6 are very slim.  

Santana, with Wang, gives us the ability to roll out two very good pitchers at the front of the rotation while we sure up the back three spots and sort out the bullpen internally as opposed to externally.  If we continue to acquire pitching in the draft, as there is a chance we could have multiple 1st Round or compensatory picks coming in the next several off-seasons.

Phil Hughes will own you.

by marcbouch9 on Dec 1, 2007 9:36 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

Pitching in the AL East
will be much more of a challenge than pitching in the AL Central.

They are paying for the dominant Santana of the last few years - not the one they will likely have over the next several years.

Good hitting lineups are going to find a way to hit him over time - just as the Tribe and Tigers did last season.  Santana was 1-8 against those teams last season.

by anaconda on Nov 30, 2007 10:00 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

Okay...
Santana's peripherals were only slightly up against Cleveland and Detroit.

His WHIP (1.15), K/9 (~batter an inning), BB/9 (< 3.0) were all stellar.  

The only thing that changed was the ERA which can be chalked up to unluckiness (fly balls becoming HRs), bad defense etc.

The W-L record tells us nothing.

Wang won more games than Johan, but he isn't even in the same stratosphere as Johan when it comes to stuff and pitching.

Don't kid yourself.

Losing Hughes is a blow that I hoped Yankees' would avoid, but if the deal goes through the Yankees get a Hall of Fame pitcher in his prime.

by randomize on Nov 30, 2007 10:07 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

My Issues with this
Are:

We could essentially be trading a younger santana for an older santana. Theres no gaurantee that Hughes will be great, but theres no guarantee that Santana will be worth it either. These sick pitchers always come up through the second tier franchises because those franchises are never tempted to trade them away when they are young prospects for current stars.They lock them up for a reasonable price young, and then when they have gotten all they can out of them , they flip them over for a new bunch of youngsters.

On the other hand 9 months from now we could all be chanting joh-han and completely have forgotten about phil hughes.

If this deal goes through, hopefully the yankees were blowing smoke up everyones asses about hughes, but I was at the game in the alds when he came in against the indians and he looked dominant without having to break a sweat.

by seanp23 on Nov 30, 2007 11:50 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

Nobody is comparing Wang and Santana
so it is you who shouldn't kid yourself.

Santana won't be in his prime for long and he's probably not going to duplicate that same kind of dominance that he did in MIN.

You don't have to have the best pitcher in baseball [right now] to win a ring.  The last Yankee dynasty is a perfect example of that.

It's the depth of the rotation that is going to give this team the best chance to win in October.

by anaconda on Dec 1, 2007 1:31 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

Santana
is dominant, and he will continue to be dominant. This site of all places should know that numbers don't lie.

You can certainlly question who the Yankees are giving up, and you can question the amount of money it will take to get him, but you cannot question what Santana will do for the duration of his contract barring injury.

Explain how adding Johan would affect the depth of the rotation in a negative way ?  If the Yanks traded two of the Trinity for him your point holds, but to me, if today was opening day, it would go Wang, Hughes, Joba, Mussina, Kennedy (just so the 3 kids don't pitch back to back to back).

Add Johan and subtract Hughes and you have:
Johan, Wang, Joba, Mussina, Kennedy.  Moving Wang from #1 to #2 makes the Yanks' rotation deeper.

Doesn't it ????

You are certainly entitled to be against this trade, but your line of reasoning should favor Hughes' future at a discount price vs. Santana's present at a bloated price.  

I like Hughes a lot, but we are talking about the best pitcher in baseball.  He is 29, not 40 and in need of back surgery.  

by matthaggs on Dec 1, 2007 3:27 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

Re: Santana
No offense, but I don't need you to define my line of reasoning for me.  Thanks anyways.

Here's something you're not taking into account.

The "middle-tier" prospect that will likely be included in this deal will probably be Horne - who is their next best starting prospect outside of the Trinity.  We're not talking about Matt DeSalvo, Tyler Clippard, or Chase Wright.  That's where the Yanks' depth would take another hit.

Horne is the next starter who will get a legitimate shot in the rotation and it will most likely be as soon as 2008.  

I don't really care about Melky because his defense is overrated for the exception of his arm.  That said, the trade will probably force the team to make another nonsensical move to replace him by spending more money.  

Damon would assume the role of CF, but I'm not so sure the team will keep him out there in the long run and Jackson will not be ready to play with the big boys for at least another season.

As I've stated already, Santana to the Bronx could be the deciding factor in persuading Pettitte to return.  I certainly hope so because that would instantly make the Yankee rotation as formidable as any in the league.

We'll see, but I think keeping Hughes is the wiser long term move for this club.

by anaconda on Dec 1, 2007 4:51 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

Horne's success is even more
speculative than Hughes'. Santana for Hughes is a no brainer, so the issue is how giving up Melky and one of our Minor League studs hurts us. This does create a short-term CF issue, but you're investing a whole lot in these prospects, and the key word is, prospect.  
I always feel pressure. What I don't have is fear. -- El Duque

by LateInningRelief on Dec 1, 2007 11:20 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

Ok
But in the context of talking about this trade, saying: "It's the depth of the rotation that is going to give this team the best chance to win in October.", does not make any sense at all. By making the trade the Yankees are adding depth, not subtracting it. And you say in October but then talk about a guy who might throw a pitch in 2008. What about this October?  

I know you don't need my advice, but you keep making that statement about depth and I keep scratching my head.

by matthaggs on Dec 1, 2007 1:04 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

I agree 100%
A fair trade is one in which neither side is happy. I know as Yankee fans we just expect other GMs to grab their ankles and give us their best players, but apparently Minnesota didn't get that memo. The Yankees have the financial resources to take on this salary and they are acquiring the best pitcher in baseball. It hurts to lose a prospect of Hughes' pedigree, but the Yanks are dealing from a position of great depth in their farm and you take the proven commodity in the prime of his career over an unproven, injury prone prospect 100% of the time.

Seriously people, this is going to be a huge win for the Yanks. Rather than daydreaming about the Cy Youngs that Hughes might (and much more likely will not) win, how about getting excited over the guy who should have three Cy Youngs winning a few more in pinstripes?

Fear the Evil Empire

by pfistyunc on Dec 1, 2007 8:00 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

How does this trade
hurt our rotation depth if it is Hughes/Melky as the start of the package? We lose a starter for 2008 and gain one who is...um, what's the phrase I'm looking for?.....oh, the best pitcher on the fucking planet.
Fear the Evil Empire

by pfistyunc on Dec 1, 2007 8:02 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

to pfistyons fear the evil empire
why cant you write a simple article without having to use the F--- word..this just shows your upbringing....

by 37 yanks1 on Dec 1, 2007 12:57 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

why does it matter?
shows yours.

by rockstark on Dec 1, 2007 1:12 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

Not good
They let the Red Sox spook them - I really doubt BOS was ready to make that trade.  Cashman and Co. got suckered.

by docgonzo on Nov 30, 2007 9:38 PM EST   0 recs

I agree completely
I don't think Theo and Co. were serious about Santana because the move - both in financial terms and expected length of contract - goes completely against their philosophy in recent years.

I hate to say it but the Yankee front office is getting played by Theo and the Red Sox.

My only hope now is:


  • Gene Michael hasn't lost his touch with evaluating talent and Hughes turns out to be nothing special or an underachiever
  • Getting Santana might really entice Pettitte to return for a legitimate shot at another ring.
  • Santana throws everyone a curveball and rejects the trade (of course, Jessica Alba will show up on my doorstep in her nightie before that happens).

by anaconda on Nov 30, 2007 9:50 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

Pettitte
That has been one of my greatest hopes for landing Santana as well.  If we can have two stellar lefties at the front of our rotation, we will be a lot better off than last season.

I share your reluctance, but I'm more favorable to making this trade than you are.  And this is still the stuff of rumors, so who knows what will actually end up happening.

by SenorSwanky on Nov 30, 2007 10:21 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

the only thing
that made me think it might be okay is that Gene Michael voted for it.  I trust him.

I would love for Andy to come back.  Maybe he didn't like having to be "the guy" so much this past year...but I'm getting resigned to the fact he's not coming back.

I still hate losing Phil Hughes.  For the longest time we've heard he's the ace of the Yankees future...and that almost no-hitter in Texas was just so great.  I wanted to see what he has...and I still think he has the potential to be the best of the 3.  

Sigh.

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

by bxgrl1 on Nov 30, 2007 10:36 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

We don't know...
...that Michael voted for it or what anyone on that call said.  It's all just speculation.

And I don't think we should all be so down on Andy right now.  He isn't training, true.  But nothing else in the NYT article which interviewed his dad suggests to me he's leaning towards retirement; all we know is he's mulling his options and just enjoying time away from baseball.  And Jorge's comment that he is leaning against returning was followed up by an optimistic pledge that he could be persuaded to return.

by SenorSwanky on Nov 30, 2007 10:49 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

a lot
of people have said it.  Torre, Posada, his dad.  I think they are leaking it slowly.  That's just my take on it.  
"The secret of managing is to keep the guys who hate you away from the guys who are undecided." -Casey Stengel

by bxgrl1 on Dec 1, 2007 7:51 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

anaconda's doesnt think theo and co serious about
i agree--believe the rsox were sucking the yanks into giving away more than they should..another good lefty would of been eric bedard of orioles..and he isnt that old and played for a bad team..and the orioles would not of expected to get any of the big 3 for him..if santana deal
falls thru go for bedard..

by 37 yanks1 on Dec 1, 2007 1:06 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

Well,
Bedard is actually 8 days older than Santana, will cost about $20M when he becomes a FA, will cost one of the big three, more likely Kennedy, and there is a concern with him getting shut down in August last year.

Bedard is a nice option, but it would have to be Kennedy, Melky, and someone not named Horne, Jackson, or Tabata.

Phil Hughes will own you.

by marcbouch9 on Dec 1, 2007 2:01 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

Suckered?
Suckered in to acquiring the best pitcher in baseball for 1 strong pitching prospect, 1 mediocre outfield and pitching prospect to be named later? That's an odd way to put it.

If the NYY can pull off this deal, its a steal.

Santana > Hughes
Melky = Replaceable
Other prospects -> inconsequential

I said before it would take Hughes and it seems I was right. I think it will take maybe 2 more prospects on top of Hughes & Melky. That seems like a fair haul for MIN.

I don't think BOS will match that.
I don't think LAA will match that.
I don't think NYM can match that.
Dodgers might be a wildcard in this.

If they get this done and Santana signed, the NYY have done the right NYY thing to do. That is, they bought the best talent there is with cash and pieces they don't have time to develop. Every year is a must win year for the NYY and this is the best way to win in 2008.

by KevinV on Nov 30, 2007 11:47 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

I hate this mentality
"If they get this done and Santana signed, the NYY have done the right NYY thing to do. That is, they bought the best talent there is with cash and pieces they don't have time to develop. Every year is a must win year for the NYY and this is the best way to win in 2008."

Spoiled fans. Did we think that way in 1993?

by seanp23 on Nov 30, 2007 11:55 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

You are right.
This is all driven by the mentality that a championship is a must every single year. The NYY are not allowed to rebuild. Another way to put it is that they don't have to rebuild.

The NYY are the top of the food chain, they get other teams best players when they can't afford them anymore. That's why the NYY are always good: the most money and the expectation to win every single year. They are the villians in the eyes of every other team's fans and they are better off just acting that way instead of feigning that they are going to develop their own core of young stars. That really isn't possible unless you are willing to risk failure and accept that you will not win a championship every year.

by KevinV on Dec 1, 2007 11:15 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

Dont get me wrong
I love the fact that every year it is a distinct possibility that the yankees will win the world series because essentially nothing stands in their way from acquiring whoever they want and they dont have to endure growing pains other teams do. However, there is a difference between rebuilding and not throwing money at every big name free agent. If they dont get Santana I wouldnt describe 2008 as a rebuilding year.

As great as it is being a fan with a realistic expectation of winning it all every year, its equally frustrating when they dont. And recently they have not won it all while doing "the right yankee thing to do."

I agree that swapping largely unproven talent for the proven talent is a no brainer. But it does not guarantee a world series at the end of the year, which is the only flaw in your argument.

My point was that I dont like the mentality that the yankees MUST buy everything in the store because thats what the yankees do and its the only way to ensure success.

by seanp23 on Dec 1, 2007 12:29 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

Yes, suckered
I don't think BOS had any serious intention of making that trade.  They knew that it would take either Buchholz or Ellsbury to seal the deal, and they won't give up either.  Somehow, news gets out yesterday that MIN is leaning towards the BOS deal, but that was rumor, nothing more. Now the Yankee front office ups the ante with Hughes and BOS gets sit back, happy knowing that one of our best pitching prospects is on the way out.  Even with Santana, they probably feel their staff would be better than ours - and they'd be right.

by docgonzo on Nov 30, 2007 11:59 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

They made the trade with MINN
not Boston. The Twins were not absolutely determined to dump the guy no matter what. They had a very clear goal in mind in what they wanted, much like Florida with Miggy and if they didn't get it they would keep him and take the draft picks. If Boston never got involved, we still weren't getting him without Hughes.
Fear the Evil Empire

by pfistyunc on Dec 1, 2007 8:05 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

Correct
Most other teams are not fools. MIN is a well run organization with a good front office. They were going to get value for him no matter what.

by KevinV on Dec 1, 2007 11:20 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

Not suckered,
just apprised of the reality of the situation: Lester + Crisp > Kennedy + Melky.

At best, it's a dead heat.

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

by LateInningRelief on Dec 1, 2007 11:26 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

Disagree
Crisp is overpaid for a defensive CF.  Kennedy has much more promise than Lester.  Lester is a good story, but not a top prospect.  I think the key to the deal that made their offer better was the SS, Lowrie.  We have nothing to match that.
Phil Hughes will own you.

by marcbouch9 on Dec 1, 2007 12:19 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

Reply
I still don't see how the NYY were suckered. You were not going to get Santana for IPK + Melky + parts, that's what you need to remember. MIN is not stupid, they would not have accepted such a lowball package.

I think BOS was serious about their offer. Epstein would absolutely do Lester + Crisp + Prospects for Santana. That is cheap for Santana. Lester is not nearly as good as Santana, he isn't even projected to be that good. Besides, he is recovering from f'ing cancer. Crisp is an expendable piece who they were going to unload anyway. Just because Epstein is not willing to let the NYY have Santana for less that than he is willing to pay for him doesn't mean he's bluffing.

Besides, a rotation of Santana/Wang/Joba/IPK/Mussina is better than Wang/Hughes/Joba/IPK/Mussina.

It not only has more talent, but less risk because you can better predict the performance and count on getting more GS and IP.

If NY signs Rowand or Andruw Jones and Petite comes back, they would be the favorites to take the division again. That would be a hell of an off season.

by KevinV on Dec 1, 2007 11:50 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

Santana
Hate to see Melky and Hughes go.  Aren't we smart enuf to know Boston is blowing smoke.  We should stay with our young studs.  What will happen in CF?

by Nan on Nov 30, 2007 11:26 PM EST   0 recs

That spelling is "enuf"...
...to drive me crazy.  Please, no netspeak.

by SenorSwanky on Nov 30, 2007 11:42 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

I feel sick
This is definitely going to bite us in the ass.  As mediocre as Phil turned out to be last year, I'm positive he'll be much better this season after properly recuperating from his injuries.  Why give up the future for a pitcher, albeit a great one, on the cusp of decline?

by docgonzo on Nov 30, 2007 11:49 PM EST   0 recs

Ummm...
Because he's not on the cusp of decline?  I mean, he's going to be a top 3 pitcher for the next few years.

But I hate to do this.  Its just no fun. I was really looking forward to watching the Big 3 develop together and pitch in the same rotation.  There's nothing like home-grown players, even though its no sure thing that they'll become stars.

We follow these prospects for so long, and become so attached, that even when it makes our team better, it hurts to seem them go.

Its not like paying Santana is any money out of my pocket, but its just more fun to win with inexpensive home-grown players, in my opinion.

by kingrover on Dec 1, 2007 1:15 AM EST   0 recs

absolutely agree
the jeter/posada/rivera/pettitte years.  Not only were we winning but it was such fun with homegrown talent.  
"The secret of managing is to keep the guys who hate you away from the guys who are undecided." -Casey Stengel

by bxgrl1 on Dec 1, 2007 7:53 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

Cusp of decline?
Huh?

Santana has a decent chance to grab 2 or 3 more Cy Youngs. Even if he doesn't pull a Rocket and pitch until he's 45, there are easily 7 more productive, front-of-the-rotation years ahead of him.

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

by LateInningRelief on Dec 1, 2007 11:28 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

Make the deal
You are going to have to give something to get the best pitcher in baseball.  This cusp of decline stuff is ridiculous.  How old were Randy Johnson and Curt Schilling with Arizona??  Certainly over 29.  Pitchers are not NFL running backs.  Santana was eased into the rotation in Minnesota and although he has pitched a lot of innings the last 4 years, he has not had an injury plagued history.  Three names:
Jason Isrinhausen, Paul Wilson, and Bill Pulsipher.  Teams have been overhyping their prospects for years.  Although I like Hughes, it is the right decision to trade unproven prospects for a proven, still pretty damn young at 29, lefty with 2 (should be probably 3) Cy Youngs and a 1.29 era at Yankee Stadium since 2003.  How is it that everyone is so sure that Santana is going to breakdown (although there is no evidence of it) and that Phil Hughes isnt going to end up like those "cant miss" Mets prospects of the 90's?

by ymf on Dec 1, 2007 9:13 AM EST   0 recs

35 and 38
The 2001 co-World Series MVP's were Curt Schilling at 35 and Randy Johnson at 38.  I am pretty sure a 29 year old can still contribute to a teams chances of winning a championship.

by ymf on Dec 1, 2007 9:46 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

I would say
we have 3 of his best years coming.  It's not like he's Pedro and cam up when he was 11 and threw 200IP+ twelve times before he was 19.  Santana will be good.  No doubt about that.
Phil Hughes will own you.

by marcbouch9 on Dec 1, 2007 10:01 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

All speculation, rumors, and often fabrications
How are you people so in the Yankees loop that you know who voted to include hughes and who had to be convinced?  Just stop because it is all speculation.  How many times do you see a guy get traded when you heard nothing about it before hand or for guys that were never mentioned in any report.  Or how many times do you read about the free agent suitors for a player and he signs with a team they had no idea even talked to him.  Sportswriters want to sell papers.  

by ymf on Dec 1, 2007 9:20 AM EST   0 recs

well
first of all:  who are YOU?

second of all:  I think the word was "presumably" Brian Cashman had to be convinced and that's a pretty good bet.

third of all:  most of this stuff is coming across the wires too fast to "sell" newspapers.  By the time I would go out and get a paper, everyone would know it.

fourth of all: if we stop we have nothing to talk about.  We do understand it's speculation and rumor.  We don't need to be told that.  

So you stop.

Thank you for playing.

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

by bxgrl1 on Dec 1, 2007 9:24 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

Why,
I believe ymf means Yankee Mother F*&%er.
I always feel pressure. What I don't have is fear. -- El Duque

by LateInningRelief on Dec 1, 2007 2:49 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

I'm sorry but
that's an assumption and MERE SPECULATION.  Do you KNOW?  Were you in the ROOM?  please stop speculating.
"The secret of managing is to keep the guys who hate you away from the guys who are undecided." -Casey Stengel

by bxgrl1 on Dec 1, 2007 9:40 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

good bet
A good bet and facts are not the same thing.  I think it is funny that people post as part of their arguments that Cashman had to be convinced and that Gene Michaels voted for it when they have no f-ing idea what was said in those meetings.  People visiting websites with sponsors and advertisements is the same thing as selling papers too genius.

by ymf on Dec 1, 2007 9:31 AM EST   0 recs

This is a factor
ALDS Pitching Matchups

Game 1: Johan Santana vs Chein Ming Wang
Game 2: Josh Beckett vs Joba Chamberlain
Game 3: Dice-K vs Phil Hughes
Game 4: Curt Schilling vs Mike Mussina/IPK
Game 5: Johan Santana vs Chein Ming Wang
Game 6: Josh Beckett vs Joba Chamberlain
Game 7: Dice-K vs Phil Hughes
**Note: Could replace Schilling with Buchholz or Lester (whichever stayed)

or if Yanks get him (for Hughes)
Game 1: Johan Santana vs Josh Beckett
Game 2: Chein Ming Wang vs Dice K
Game 3: Joba Chamberlain vs Curt Schilling
Game 4: IPK/Mike Mussina vs Buchholz
Game 5: Johan Santana vs Josh Beckett
Game 6: Chein Ming Wang vs Dice K
Game 7: Joba Chamberlain vs Curt Schilling (or Lester/Buchholz)

This all of course not including Pettitte in any way.

by ymf on Dec 1, 2007 9:54 AM EST   0 recs

ALDS
First set is hypothetical matchups if Santana goes to Boston.

by ymf on Dec 1, 2007 9:54 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

ALCS
Before anyone even jumps on it, I meant ALCS

by ymf on Dec 1, 2007 9:56 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

is this
a factor?  a fact?  speculation?  a rumor?  or what?
"The secret of managing is to keep the guys who hate you away from the guys who are undecided." -Casey Stengel

by bxgrl1 on Dec 1, 2007 10:21 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

I think
it's just a hypothetical.

Basically if Boston gets him, the Yankees' are screwed unless Hughes and Joba turn into bona fide stoppers.

If the Yankees get him, its a draw when it comes to the rotation.

Of course, choke-Rod and company would still have to hit, something they haven't done much of since the 2004 ALCS.

I'd still take Boston to win in both cases.

by randomize on Dec 1, 2007 10:26 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

hypothetical (which I said)
My post was a hypothetical situation of what the two teams rotations in the playoffs would look like.  I think they are pretty accurate too.  Those two rotations are much closer to "fact" than what you posted in terms of Cashman needing to be convinced and Stick voting for the trade.  You have no idea that those two things happened at all, thats my point.  You have no point in attacking this post because I didnt claim to have "information".  All I did was post what the two rotations would look like.  Where exactly would you say I am off?  Your posts were full of speculation.  Dont get all defensive because I called you on it because my post is very close to what you would see.

by ymf on Dec 1, 2007 10:36 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

And its a factor
I am sorry that you are unable to comprehend the post.  A factor is something that needs to be considered before making a decision.  On the yankees part, it is definitely a "factor" that if Boston gets Santana, they pitch him and Beckett in 4 of the 7 games in the series.  And that, is pretty much a fact!  If you need to look up definitions to the other words you are having trouble understanding, may I recommend dictionary.com.

by ymf on Dec 1, 2007 10:39 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

You know
In class on Thursday one of my students gave a presentation on Green construction.

He defined 'sustainability' as "getting the resources we need without sacrificing the ability of the next generation to acquire the resources they need."

I can make myself be ok with this deal- make myself consider it a fair trade- if the Yankee braintrust believes that they have not given up too much of the future.

Including Hughes and Melky in the deal had better bring the value of the third player down.  I'm not in favor of giving up another MLB ready or nearly ready player.

Like many here, I'm gun shy.  If anything goes wrong and Santana isn't all he's billed as, I know I'm going to be very very unhappy.

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

by jscape2000 on Dec 1, 2007 11:05 AM EST   0 recs

You're on the money j
"[if] Santana isn't all he's billed" and if Hughes is all that he's billed, this will quickly devolve into a lose/lose for NY.

Which is one reason I don't like the trade with Hughes as part of it.

by detroit yankee on Dec 1, 2007 8:00 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

Boston
I understand and even somewhat agree with the concerns about mortgaging the future, but I think some of you have Boston in mind when you think of teams who tend to their players and don't mortgage their future in any way.  And that's a wrong impression.  I'm sure it pained them, at least now in hindsight, to give up Hanley Ramirez, a great young shortstop, for Josh Beckett, who sucked until this season.  But he was largely responsible for making the difference to give them another title this year.  And now they don't regret that trade at all.

by SenorSwanky on Dec 1, 2007 2:34 PM EST   0 recs

Beckett sucked until this season?
Um, which one? The guy who runs the Zamboni for the Carolina Hurricanes, or the guy who pitches for the Sox?
I always feel pressure. What I don't have is fear. -- El Duque

by LateInningRelief on Dec 1, 2007 2:51 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

I wouldn't say "sucked"
but he was definitely up and down.  His 2006 was terribly terrible.
Phil Hughes will own you.

by marcbouch9 on Dec 1, 2007 3:15 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

His 5.00 ERA
in 2006 wasn't so hot.
"Have faith in the Yankees, my son. Think of the great DiMaggio."

by jscape2000 on Dec 1, 2007 3:15 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

He sucked for Boston
That's what I meant.  16-11 with a 5.07 ERA in '06, and Boston didn't make the playoffs.

by SenorSwanky on Dec 1, 2007 3:19 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

never in the postseason
He may have had some up and down stats, but the bottom line is this guy is scary to face in a big game.  He has been about as clutch as any pitcher has been in the postseason. &nbs