If the Yanks want a max payroll of $200m, that's an average of $8m/player. So just to pay ARod, we need 2+ minimum wage kids. For Mo, another kid. For Jeter, another kid+. For Posada, another kid. A CC or Tex, another kid+.

So it is essential, even with the largest payroll, that they Yanks have a number of effective, cheap kids, in order to afford ARod and other impact players.

Of course, when you have a stud kid like Joba, and hopefully Phil, you get the gold ring. With over $70m wrapped up in only 4 players (ARod, Jetes, Mo, Po), having IPK for cheap sure beats paying $9m for a Washburn.

I do believe however, IPK can be around league average or under a 5.00 ERA. That would make him a very suitable #5.

no game on tv here, for next two weeks will be pre-empted by live Olympic coverage...looks like Gamedat radio listening for me...D'oh!

btw, that Olympic opening ceremony was too short..think they left out some Chinese inventions throughout history too...

3 I don't get why payroll has suddenly become a paramount issue for the Yankees. They've spent like drunken sailors for a long time, and they've made extraordinary amounts of money in the process. Next year their revenue stream is going to skyrocket.

Obviously, they shouldn't spend money badly. But money well spent on Rodriguez shouldn't affect the rest of their spending one iota.

Maybe Damon needs to take a page or two from Abreu's book on fielding the ball near the wall.

At least we had two well-struck balls in the first. That's something.

Otherwise, it looks to be a long night, as usual.

See?

Guess hitter.

I was cursing his name for that 3-1 take (what are you looking for?) and before the thought was out: BAM!

Guessing breaking ball.

Ah, that's better. See, I told you it would happen 13 >;)

See?

Guess hitter.

I was cursing his name for that 3-1 take (what are you looking for?) and before the thought was out: BAM!

Guessing breaking ball.

Casey just grounded out to end it though. White Sox win.

another XBH..IPK make even 3??

5 hard hit balls in 7 ABs vs. IPK. This doesn't look good.

Heck, I think Andy Phillips can probably improve. He did all right last season, and really hasn't had much chance to play this season.

Booooooooooo.

They ALWAYS seem to have the Yankees number.

future is still bright for the Highlanders, but this year just about done methinks...

I have a feeling he won't get one, which is not really fair, IMHO.

Same here, Ian, same here.

Fire Bob Shepard and Reggie Jackson.

Nice job by Rasner. Why do the Yankees' 5th starters pitch so poorly as starters and so well in long relief?

Raz puts out the fire!

UPDATE, 10:25 p.m.: Cue the "Kennedy stinks" posters. But only a fool would judge him now. He's appearing in his 12th big league start and he has a grand total of 260 professional innings under his belt.
...

UPDATE, 11:17 p.m.: I'm not ready to declare Ian Kennedy a non-prospect. But that was pretty awful. A few of the nine hits were bleeders but there were a few rockets, too

I think if he knew it would turn out this way - the injuries, the suckitude - he'd have made a play for Santana. Especially when the price dropped at the deadline.

Alan Horne, the other player Cashman supposedly didn't want to trade, injured his arm in April. He had a rehab start in Tampa and earned himself a 23.14 ERA.

They're both awful, but Melky is Uber-awful. I'd trade Melk for Jacoby.

151 160 The most rabid Yankee hater couldn't imagine a scenario where Melky and IPK would suck the way they do this year, or where Hughes would be as snake-bitten as he is by injuries.

Not making the trade was the right move, but every time Melky makes another feeble out, or IPK goes to 3-2 followed by a rocket, yeah, the decision not to trade does look bad.

I still don't think that changes his thinking. If he thinks he has gold with Hughes/Horne/IPK combined, then he is not going to regret whatever move he didn't make a few moths ago. Regret should only crop up in a few years if none of these guys pans out AND Santana ages well.

However, you're certainly right that hindsight is 20/20. Just wondering if Cashman is wishing he'd chosen differently with the benefit of hindsight.

As it's going, he may not be with the Yankees next year, to benefit from the young talent he's saved.

No, no it doesn't, because 1] such moves can not even begin to be evaluated for at least a few years, and 2] all trade scenarios involved Hughes in addition to IPK and Melky.

Just get the run in, Melky.

His seasons with the Mets:

2005 age 28 96 OPS+
2006 age 29 150 OPS+
2007 age 30 128 OPS+
2008 age 31 118 OPS+

Hmmm..., his age 28 season was his career best by far, and his numbers have declined the last two seasons. So, what does he look like in the last two years of his long, lucrative contract?

In 1998, at age 29, coming off his best season, Bernie Williams signed a long contract, and two-thirds of the way through it he was pretty much cooked. What does the future hold for Carlos?

I think the lucrative contract for Santana, on top of giving up two good young pitchers and a valuable player (short-term) felt like too much. But now, if you pose the equation as Santana for an injury prone number 3 or 2 level starter, a 5th starter that needs two years of seasoning, and a 4th outfielder with an atrocious bat -- wow, it looks awful to turn that one down.

Actually, both 2005 (unusually bad) and 2006 (unusually good) are kind of oddball seasons, compared to the rest of his career. I'm pretty confident, though, that Beltran's best seasons are behind him.

187 I don't know that it was obvious, I just wanted clarification on whether the age or the year was mistaken.

But there is a part of me that feels that Santana-level pitching isn't easily acquired, let alone developed internally, so I think it's an interesting discussion.

And, even if all three do end up as you say, what happens when 30 y.o. Santana, after averaging 220 innings for the last fives seasons, has his arm fall off. i'd sure rather pay my #3 starter league minimum than shell out beaucoup millions to the next Barry Zito.

However, he seems to have a real fondness for Farnsworth level reclamation projects. I guess he did OK with Farns, but Bruney seems to be his new pet. I"m not sure I'm as fond of Bruney as he is.

It's not inconceivable that he declines steeply in the nest few years. If so, how does trading two pitching prospects (even if the end up only as serviceable #3-#5 guys) for a future #3 and six or seven years and 15 million/year (or whatever he's getting paid) sound?

The truth is the Santana contract is risky by itself, without including any players in the deal.

So the equation is: Santana >? CC+Hughes+IPK+Melky+prospect

True, but there is a very good chance that BOTH disappoint relative to expectations. Santana's is a long, expensive contract and those have not always worked out too well for the Yankees.

But the interesting part to me is whether we would ever have a Santana level talent with the approach we're taking, and does a Santana level pitcher make the difference in getting to the WS. I admit that when I pose these questions, I'm overrating Santana a bit. But I just wonder whether it sometimes pays to take a risk for that type of pitcher, especially since for all our talk of committing to prospects, the organization still seems to struggle with a long term approach.

I don't know, but Joba is turning out OK.

huh?

their long term approach seems perfectly fine to me. perhaps the problem is that you're trying to project their "long term approach" with short term analysis ...

As 219 points out, young pitchers are quite risky. So are older pitchers in a declining phase, but I don't think a straight prospects-or-bust approach with the occasional shrewd, financially prudent free agent signing is as clean a blueprint for success as some claim.

The Red Sox overpaid for Dice-K and paid a pretty good price for Beckett. Both are good young pitchers, of course, but a good price had to be paid. I don't think the Yankees can always turn their back if a really quality talent is there to be had, even if the price looks daunting. Maybe CC is a better deal than Santana, but they will overpay for CC anyway.

This is all a long-winded way of saying that I was totally against the trade when it was first discussed, and looking back on it, probably still would be. But it's less clear cut to me now than it would have been before.

229 The long term approach being put forward by Cashman is a good one, and I'm on board with it. The point I'm making is that "short term thinking" still pervades parts of the organization culturally -- I'm not projecting that, it's a reality. Hopefully it starts to go away, but the Yankees haven't turned overnight into a "win later" organization.

and hank doesn't count; for all his blather, he doesn't get to call the shots, for all his blather, the overall long term plan has been evident in the decision making this season ...

But he does look like he's about to cry.

There is a BIG, BIG differnce between expensive FA signings and expensive trades where you ALSO have to give away young talent. If Santana was a FA, my guess is the Yankees would have gotten him, even though there is still a high degree of risk in long term deals for pitchers.

There is a BIG, BIG differnce between expensive FA signings and expensive trades where you ALSO have to give away young talent. If Santana was a FA, my guess is the Yankees would have gotten him, even though there is still a high degree of risk in long term deals for pitchers.

That doesn't seem like a fair distribution of burden. Like Harry Tuttle (or is it Buttle) says in Brazil: "We're all in it together!"

Criminy, pitchers like Santana, and Liriano for that matter, didn't just fall from the sky. It too years to develop him. Yes, developing young pitchers is risky--that's why it's a good idea to try to keep as many good prospects as possible. Let's not give up on that "approach" at the first possible deal that comes along. If Joba AND Hughes AND Kennedy AND Horne are all busts three years down the line, then I'll worry if the "approach" needs to be modified.

"But it's less clear cut to me now than it would have been before."

That's where you and I differ, I guess. Evaluation of this trade/non-trade, for me, can never be more or less clear until a few years have passed. We need at least to wait until after the off season to see what Cashman does with the money he is not using to pay Santana. To express creeping doubt already after only a few months betrays a fundamentally short term perspective that is hard to apply to a decision aimed very much at long term results (in either case: picking up Santana for six or seven years, or keeping prospects).