And this could also mean that once Damon's healthy he could spell more RF / 1B, removing two of our biggest defensive culprit from the field .

He's an average player. but he's filling in holes where average seems like heaven.

We'll see.

It doesn't negate my earlier criticisms of Cashman's long-range planning. First, if there'd been any AAA players who were even slightly competent, this might not have been necessary. Second, this is primarily a short-term, reactive move (and a good one). In the longer term, it's only OK. Nady makes an adequate replacement for Abreu next year, but that's probably all he is, unless you really think he's a .330 hitter. There's still plenty of heavy lifting to be done to be ready for next year and beyond, so I'm still waiting to see how that goes.

One thing I'm reading a lot in comments that isn't right is that some how the other team has to do worse than the yankees for this to be a good trade. That's not true. If the Yankees can trade something they have surplus of to a team that has a scarcity of it and vice versa, it's fine for the other team to do well.

Tabata is not doing well in the Yankee's minor leagues. If somebody finds the potion over in the Pirate's minors that makes Tabata better, that's not an indication that this was a bad trade, though it might be an indication that the Yankees need better position player coaching. So, in terms of assessing this trade a few years from now, it'll be awfully difficult to claim that any Tabata upswing is intrinsic to is ability: he has shown a disconcerting combination of bad omens - fragile health, soft commitment, and not too much hitting. Sounds like a risk the Yankees can afford to expend even if he turns out to be a solid player for another organization.

Also, I'm confused. With Marte, in order to get the picks, do we have to offer arb, or can we just let him walk? Same with Bobby. Do we get picks for just letting guys walk? And Jason? Might he generate a pick?

With the other free agents, yes, you have to offer arbitration in order to get the picks. In any case, with Marte in particular, we don't really know yet if he'll bring back picks.

yes, the yanks can offer him something (they could in theory offer him an extension the way they did with cano - but i seriously doubt that since a) he may not be in the long term plans and b) boras is his agent.)
but i would assume this goes to arbitration and they pay him next year whatever the arb number is.
my understanding is he could be non-tendered but i am not as sure how that works.

as far as the free agents the yanks have - abreu, giambi, marte, etc - they have to be offered arbitration to merit draft picks and they have to be rated as type a or b to get the picks - with a netting more

http://tinyurl.com/555vyr

There's been some confusion over Nady's contract status. While he's only signed through this year, some last night pointed out he doesn't have enough service time to be a FA, so I guess that makes him arb. eligible?

What's more confusing is various newspaper reports are saying different things. Rosenthal says he's signed through 2009 (which I believe is wrong) and Kepner says he's a FA next year. Do you know the definitive answer?

All trades such as these represent a trade-off, the potential future success of the prospect--even long-term success--against the short-term value of the older player. We tend to focus on the lost prospects who go on to contribute elsewhere, but we often forget about the immediate return on such a trade.

I call it the Jay Buhner effect, a trade so bad that it has became a legendary joke on Seinfeld. But really, was it so bad? And what if Ken Phelps, who played well for the team that year, led the Yankees to the promised land (yeah, I know, it was 1988, still go along with me...)? Would a WS title have been worth the cost of Buhner?

Last night someone responded to my post that if Tabata turns into Willie Mays (the poster admitted this was of course highly unlikely) we would regret the trade even if the Yanks win the WS this year.

I'm not sure I agree. I am not a win now at all costs guy, and I was more than willing to give up on this season a month ago and watch the team rebuild for the future. At the same time, I do not see the WS as some sort of Yankees birthright. As such, I think that I perhaps value the title even more than those who clamor for it every years. The last eight years show just how hard it can be to win the big one. Given that, I think that, I might be willing to part with a future star, even a great one, if it guaranteed the WS. And, if I were able to look back in ten years at this or any trade, and say "well, we gave up so-and-so, who is now a perennial all star, but we also won the WS with player Z," I would probably call that a good trade.

Of course, all of this lays in the future. I don't think the Yanks wll win the WS this year. I don't think Nady will be a key player. I also think that it is very, very unlikely Tabata will be a great star. In fact, in the log run evaluating this trade may come down to seeing what draft picks and subsequent trade acquisitions are picked up by both teams from flipping the players acquired in this deal.

But for right now, Nady simply must be an improvement over Gardner/Christian in OF. In a tight race such as this year's AL East has become, that really could be a difference maker.

Pujols was NOT a high pick or highly touted. There are MANY players (Piazza) who were relative unknows as prospects and have had success at the MLB level. There are tons of very high level prospects who went nowhere. Like traing stocks, you have to look at all the information you have NOW and try and make a good decision based on NOW. What happens eventually is somewhat random.

I think in general, if you have to trade prospects, partially what makes smart deals (regardless of how they work out) are those where you sell high/buy low.

Also, the team situation has to be looked at. Did the Mets, Detroit and to some degree the Sox 2 years ago, make a conscious deciusion to 'trade the future' for an opportunity to win NOW? Is this a bad idea by definition? Or is a 'Post Season in the Hand' sometimes better the 'A bunch of prospects in the Bush'? (Of course, there's no guarantee that the PS is in hand, but you get the idea.)

Look at Navarron. He was highly thought of by the Yanks, and good Catchers are always hard to find. But we needed him to get RJ. He did nothing for a few years and we all thought it was 'a good deal' to trade him. Now he's doing well, and some feel we 'lost out on him'. What if he regresses next year?

So do we have to wait until a player's career is established (one way or the other) and then look back to evaluate whether it was a good trade of not?

Yes, the idea is to keep the good ones and dump the (ultimately) bad ones. It's a best guess game. But there will always be a share of successes and failures, as that is the process. If you don't take chances, then you can't make too many trades. It seems to me that 'letting a good one get away' is part of the process and not necessarily a failure.

What's going on here? Something must be wrong with me...

By biggest gripe was having to give up Tabata, of course. But not because I think that he will pan out--he probably won't. Then again, many, many prospects don't pan out.

Rather, I am still a bit worried that an organization with so little MiL position player depth just traded away one of its few MiL position prospects. I would rather the team oversold a bit on pitching with their surplus of redundant arms (as Cliff called them): these may be of higher value to another organization weak in pitching.

But, if the team has so soured on Tabata, they may have felt the best thing to do is sell him now at a relatively high value. If he's a future bust, his value will likely only decline as he continues to flounder in MiL.

Indeed, the league does not allow players to be traded only for money. Whether we like that or not, that's the rule. Yet they allow deals like the Abreu trade--I would have no problem with the league nixing deals like that (so long as it was done fairly, but that's another story...).

Fleecing another team is not the problem. If Cashman can convince another GM that Prospect X is the next Mickey Mantle and get him to trade a very good player in return, well played! Or, if the Yankees ever become sellers, I see nothing wrong with flipping an aging #3 starter to a contender for their tops prospects.

But one-sided salary dumps strike me as a bit distasteful. Moreover, trades like the Abreu deal spoil us into thinking that all trades should be high pay-off, zero-risk affairs, which in turn encourages false expectations. Maybe part of the reason Nady-for-Tabata might look so bad is because Abreu-for-nothing looks so good.

Now... if we offer ANY kind of contract, does he stay with the Yanks in 2009?
... We offer $5m
... He wants $8m
It goes to Arb.
In other words, is the act of offering a contract, regardless of how low, the TRIGGER that says 'you are a Yankee one way or the other', and arbitration is simply the vehicle to decide the salary?

If this is so, does it seem that any arb-eligible player who has an extreme career year (just like Nady) will probably get more then he's worth if it goes to arb?

Again, if this is so, does that mean Nady is probably not a piece of the 2009 puzzle UNLESS the Yanks feel he has turned a corner and is now a legit .850 OPS guy?

We don't want to replace Abreu with an .800 OPS/average fielder guy, do we?

So.... only a guy who 'is not under control' can decline arb and become a FA?

reactionary yankees fans scream and bitch they gave up too much?

check.

reactionary pirates fans scream and bitch they didn't get enough?

check.

impartial observers call the trade pretty balanced?

check.

Several folks seem to have this right above, but just to clarify, he is under team control and into his arbitration years. It is entirely up to the Yankees whether or not they want to keep, cut, or trade him this offseason, but if they want to keep him, they have either to go to arbitration with him or settle in advance of it. He settled prior to arbitration last year for $3.35 million. Given his career year, his price should increase significantly from there this winter.

He will be a free agent after the 2009 season unless signed to a multi-year deal.

1-Opinions about the trade have become generally favorable, although originally mixed---My problem with the trade is that most opinions are conceding that the trade was favorable, on balance, i.e., more good than it was bad, which is fine, but not necessarily outstanding. In other words, there are a whole lot of ifs that need to play themselves out in order for the trade to be knock-your-socks-off. The problem is that Xavier Nady is no David Justice. He (currently) is better than Gardner/Christian (currently), which is a concession. And Damaso Marte is a lefty specialist in a bullpen that arguably did not necessarily need a lefty specialist. He is better than Latroy Hawkins, another concessin. So the question is did replacing Gardner/Christian and Hawkins have sufficient priority to justify the expenditure of those four prospects on a team that also needs to fill the holes left by the absences of Matsui and Posada, and the failed expectations of Hughes and Kennedy, and no longer has those four prospects for dealing with these deficiencies.

2-Bobby Abreu's fall from grace is a foregone conclusion for less than obvious reasons---The guy's batting .280, is hardly a slug on base, and can throw out runners. I must be missing something about how he became yesterday's trash.

3-The consensus is that for a trade to be a good one, it has to help the team, regardless of how the traded-away player(s) does(do)---Amen on this one. Only if the trade is a bust for your team does it matter how the traded-away players do. Otherwise, it's a win-win situation. Nothing's ever wrong with win-win (unless Boston is one of the winners).

Now, I 100% agree with your post. I have seen posts (on Lohud, surprise!) along the lines of 'we have tons of money, so what if we have a $300m payroll. LETS DO IT!' It makes my skin crawl. Financial advatage is a reality, but we should not allow that to rule the game.

To me, 'Fair Play' is a VERY important concept in sports. (It's also why I want Instant Replay, because like the Lowell call last night, really bad umpiring is NOT 'Fair'). We LOVE to win, but when we involve our children in sports, it is to benefit from all of the positive values sports has to offer. For our children, winning is at the bottom of the list.

I know Baseball is a business, and I want to win as much as anyone, but I feel it is of primary importance that baseball still represents all of those 'other' important values that we associate with sports. What sport ceases to be 'Fair', I mean, what is the point?

Have you ever met a guy who was pleased with himself and took joy at beating his 11 year old little sister in a game?

HOWEVER, the salary dump MUST exist in today's baseball economics. If a team has overinvested in one player, and it was a mistake, there needs to be a vehicle for them to get out. Maybe a different way? Is there a different way? If ARod already has a contract for $25m, somebody has to pay it. How else but the salary dump can you let a team get 'out form under'?

Of course, if there was a team salary cap, this might happen less frequently. I myself, would like to see a max Cap and ESPECIALLY a Minimum cap. But this is America. It is our tradition and right to let Capitalism run amuck, regardless of the moral costs.

1. "If a team has overinvested in one player, and it was a mistake, there needs to be a vehicle for them to get out."

Wrong. They should have to suffer, Frankly, if teams had to eat more crazy long-term contracts, rather than selling them to the Yankees (A-Rod) or Red Sox (Lowell), they would be less likely to make those deals in the first place. This would help solve the problem.

2. "I myself, would like to see a max Cap and ESPECIALLY a Minimum cap."

There is a minimum cap (de facto), because there is a minimum salary. You want a higher minimum cap, I guess, higher than the sum of 25 x minimum salary?

3. "But this is America. It is our tradition and right to let Capitalism run amuck, regardless of the moral costs."

Aside from the political-philosophical sentiment, MLB is not run anywhere near "capitalism run amok": minimum salaries of $300,000? Limited players right for 6 years? Anti-trust exemption? Businesses (teams) can't relocate without permission? No trades for cash? No trading draft picks? Hell, a competitive draft itself? Powerful players union?

All of these, and more, cut against the MLB-as-unfettered-capitalism model. One could even argue that if real capitalist principles were applied to MLB, many of the "problems" would be solved. Whether I buy that or not is another story. But there is no way that the business structures of MLB reflect capitalism run amok, American or otherwise.

All-in-all, I'd actually call this a pretty good trade for both teams. The Pirates did take quantity over quality, but for a change, the quantity actually has some upside to it and the Pirates are usually quite poor at picking up players that could be huge if they work out. The Yankees go for the pennant every year and just don't have the organizational patience for too many projects.

http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/oracle/discussion/yankees_acquired_nady/

"Damaso Marte is a lefty specialist in a bullpen that arguably did not necessarily need a lefty specialist."
--- Cliff adressed this. Why is he a 'lefty specialist'?. Would he be a very good 8th inning guy (when Farnsworth falls off the cliff). How about next year, if we let Farns go. Can't we look at him as just a good RP, who being lefty, can also be used on occasion to get a tough lefty out?

"Bobby Abreu's fall from grace is a foregone conclusion..."
--- When Bobby came to the Yankees, he was a career .919 OPS guy.
2006: .887, 2007: .814, 2008: .790
What do you think Bobby will OPS in 2009 (at age 35?) If you average 2007 and 2008, he is basically Nady (at $16m vs $3.3) He is a 'B' baserunner, a 'B+' arm and a 'D' defensive OFer. Others can look it up, but right now, considering this and last year, I'm not even sure as a corner OFer, if he rates any better then average. So even if he is a little better then average... he is getting paid $16m. I think his numbers make him worth about $8m-$10m in today's market? You want to give him a 2 or 3 year contract, for a 35 year old?

Bobby isn't trash. The question is: For his position, is he even better then average?

HEY - can someone LIST a LINK (BR.com maybe?) to a page where you can list CURRNT YEAR OPS+/ERA+ numbers for a range of players (like all RFs, etc).

It remains to be seen if this trade will work out well, and it's clearly all Cashman here, but I agree with Cash's philosophy and approach in general. I also think that Nady will help this year, and as someone pointed out, in a tight race that could make a difference.

Heck in last nights game if he ha