I think you covered everything. Even if the Yanks don't contend it will be fun to watch Clemens and A-Rod. Wow many people can say they got to see the best pitcher AND hitter of their generation on their team at one time? I'm hoping for a miraculous comeback, but prepared for the outcome of no playoffs. Ohh... it looks like you counted Clemens' relief appearance as start, so taking that out Clemens is about a 6.5 inning pitcher. So he is proving the critics wrong... for now anyways. Now lets root for a monster second half.

1 "How" not "Wow". Damn, I made a bunch of dumb mistakes. Next time I will pay more attention editing.

Great summary, Will.

But I wouldn't be myself without a few notes here and there:

Question is: Will the Yanks win 53-55 more games?

As for A-Rod, the Replacement Level Yankee Weblog has a great sidebar on the cover count. It's at 68 which seems shocking seeing that the Yanks season is about 100 days old. I haven't done the breakdown but I'd be curious to know (if anyone else is interested) the breakdown between performance and other (contract, personal life, etc.).

As for Giambi and the lineup, I think the real benefit is Melky in center. Damon has been perhaps the worst DH in the league (118 PA - .243 .339 .340).

The quote from Cashman is telling - but only in showing how far out of his mind he is. He put together a team that was crappier on paper than the 2006 version that started the season. Just because they survived major injuries in 2006 (with Bernie and Melky as well as Cano and Abreu on fire) doesn't mean to me you cut back on the lineup quality then blame the players when they're not getting it done. This team has needed reinforcements since January (at 1B and the bench) and he's done nothing about it.

That leads to one final story that no one has picked up on, and I'd love to read your opinion: How has Cashman lasted ten years? Yeah, they won when he started but it's been a while (going on seven years and well over $1 billion unless something dramatic happens). All the recent PR (at exactly the same time - it's like it came from an agency) about the Yanks young pitching has me really admiring his media savvy at changing the story when the going is tough. But it could also be read as him finding a way to save his job.

50-27 will get us the division. The Sawx flattered once again in April and May, but have been a sub.500 team in June/July. It wouldn't surprise me to see that continue. In which case 50 wins would get us the title by a game or two, no?

The question is whether the Yankees can play better in the 2nd 1/2 and catch a catchable Sawx team. If Hughes comes back strong, and the rest of the team plays the way it did vs the Twins and Angels, good teams, then 50 wins is doable.

Re: the headline.... dammit now you've gotten "Livin On a Prayer" stuck in my head...

3 Jim, once again you're showing the opinion that winning the World Series is the only positive outcome of the baseball season. While I realize many Yankees fans my age share your opinion, personally I find it arrogant and boring. The insinuation that the Yankees haven't "won" in seven years despite a .610 winning percentage and two pennants... well that's just factually incorrect.

Whoaaaaaaaa, we're halfway theeeeeere. Whoaaaaaaaa, livin on a praaaaayer!

5 Care to explain how they keep falling further from that ultimate goal while the GM keeps his job? Going on four years since even a pennant...

Look, the standard retort is: But he's rebuilt the farm!

All I'm suggesting is that's coming from a man who knows how to keep his job (feeding the media positive stories in dark days is just one way), and not put a winning team together.

Question is: When do you want to begin the referendum on Cashman? This off-season? Next off-season? 2010? Never?

6 Like 5, I don't subscribe to the World Series or bust philosophy. Sure, that's the ultimate goal, but it's not the only one. Winning the division is very important to me. Making the playoffs is also worthy. In that respect, Cashman has never failed during his tenure. If you want to use rings as the ultimate baromoter, that's your choice. I just don't want to fire my GM based on such a strict bottom line. Similarly, if the team was winning World Series in spite of the GM, I wouldn't absolutely keep him. Even though I disagree with much of it, you've laid out a credible case for dumping Cashman. Using the "he hasn't won a pennant in 4 years", however, is not part of it.

Just to nitpick...I am not sure you can really say Giambi's absence has helped the lineup. If healthy, you could have moved Damon to 1B and slotted Giambi into the DH slot and still allowed Melky to patrol CF. No matter how you slice it, Giambi's absence has hurt.

As for O'Neill, I can't imagine him wanting to take on the daily grind of managing. He can barely focus on doing 20-30 in the YES booth as it is. I could just see him in the dugout now ordering a slice of Pizza and playing name that tune with the bat boy.

6 I don't know what the "standard retort" is, but it should be: once in the playoffs, winning becomes much more about tactical decisions and, to some degree, good or bad luck (see Clark, Tony), than about anything the GM does. It's pretty much bogus to say that the team has gotten farther from the ultimate goal of the WS, just because they have "only" made the playoffs every year for the last decade but not gone as far in the playoffs in the last few.

As Williamnyy23 (or as you would say, Willy) argues 7, you have made a good case for the GM's poor track record in personnel moves, but the "hasn't won a penant' line is rather a red herring.

5 7

Sorry but winning the division and making the playoffs is almost meaningless in this day and age. The Knicks come out of the East and crash and burn in the playoffs - does that mean something (if it ever happpens?). The NY Giants win the division or the wild card and again crash and burn. Were they a good team?

I haven't felt very good (not great) about this team's chances since 2003. 2004 I knew the Sox were the better team. 2005 - ChiSox. 2006 - Tigers. 2007 - ???

With the core players the Yankees have had for the last four years (Jeter, A-Rod, Jorge, Mo, even Moose) they should be in contention every year. Now they're barely that.

I look to the GM to a put a winning team together. And it's been a while, if ever, that he's done that.

Meanwhile, I know I started this discussion, but it really was based on a question for Will: Is Cashman good at media manipulation? Is he doing that now (again the coincident stories on the Trenton team - do the Yankees "announce" they're making the players available?).

My hypothesis is: Regardless of whether Cashman is good a putting a winning team together, he is ever better at keeping his job. Can we just leave it at that?

10 "My hypothesis is: Regardless of whether Cashman is good a putting a winning team together, he is ever better at keeping his job. Can we just leave it at that?"

What a tautological proposition. He has kept his job, so ipso facto he is infinitely good at keeping his job; therefore, NO measure of team winning (team-building success) can ever exceed his job keeping success. Even had the team won every world series in the last decade, it could be countered that they could have won more games during the year, had a better run differential, white-washed opponents in the playoffs more, etc.

This hypothesis is simply verifiable until (if) he loses his job.

8 Here's something from Goose's chat at ESPN.com yesterday:

"George (NY): Goose: Would you like to get back into baseball as a coach?

SportsNation Goose Gossage: I've been offered some coaching positions from some teams. It's a grind. People don't realize how much of a grind it is. I'm enjoying my life away from baseball. I'm enjoying doing some things back in Colorado during the Summer, playing some golf, fly fishing, hunting."

It seems like O'Neill is similarly enjoying his retirement, and who could blame him? As Bruce also alluded to yesterday, maybe O'Neill will be more willing to coach or manage when his kids are older.

10 "Can we just leave it at that?"

Sure thing. Whatever you want. As long as you too just leave it at that.

11 That should be unverifiable.

10 You are comparing apples and oranges. Both the NBA and NFL admit 16 teams to the playoffs, compared to only 8 in MLB. Also, the NFL only plays 16 games. The difference between an 8-8 team and 10-6 team could be a bad bounce/poor call/key injury/etc.

In MLB, the combination of the 162 game marathon and more selective playoff format makes winning a division/wildcard an accomplishment.

I thought the Yankees had a very good team in 2003 and 2004. I believe if managed properly, they would have won the World Series each year. In 2005 and 2006, I thought the pitching was light, but I don't think the Sox and Tigers were much better, if at all. I just don't see how you can ignore 162 games, but then allow the playoffs to decide whether the season was a success.

As for your point about Cashman, I'd like to give him credit for being a great media manipulator, but I find that hard to believe. The tabloids love nothing more than ripping people, so I doubt they are being snowed under by Cashman's charm.

12 O'Neill also has boys of the age when it must be really cool to have your dad around the house.

In another topic, of sorts...

I would be happy if the Ichiro reports are true, because I did fear that the Yankees would try to sign him to a crazy contract (like Seattle seems to be doing). With Ichiro out of the market, how d'y'all see the big off-season moves playing out now?

I still think they decline Abreu's option, but push really hard to extend A-Rod (even if it means overpaying him). But this will put additional pressure on the team to find some sort of big bopper at DH or 1B or RF, depending on where Damon finds himself.

The easiest solution (but not the best), would be to move Matsui to RF, Damon to CF, and then sign the best possible hitter on the market to DH.

11 I disagree. Isaiah is a great example that no one can explain to me - winning doesn't equal him keeping his job. And yet he persists.

Everyone likes to point out what Torre does well and how it has helped him last longer than any other manager under Big Stein. He runs a good clubhouse, the media likes him, and the team mostly wins.

But with Cashman I'm interested in the man behind the curtain. And he's alot harder to get a read on. First he was a disciple of Stick. Then he wasn't. Then he managed the NY office. Then he was fighting Tampa for control. The he got control all to himself. Then he was saving money. Then he was rebuilding the farm.

The points is: We don't have a view of a principled player in Cashman. He seems to shift around who he is, like a chameleon, based on context and circumstance. That's extraordinary especially if it helps you keep a baseball GM job for ten years with only management experience and no baseball background. By contrast, look how quickly Theo was almost pushed out in Boston.

I'm just curious about how Cashman deals with the media. Again, that all the Trenton stories came out on practically the same day signals smoke blown from behind the curtain. Will, of all us, could maybe shed some light.

Good news everyone... we were short a player for our company softball game today, but then I got an e-mail from a "Scott P." saying he's available and willing to pitch.

14 Yet how has Cashman escaped ten years of being ripped?

Don't tell O'Neill that he might be a cross between Martin and Piniella. He hates Piniella.

19 By having his team win the division every year and making just enough key deals to keep his head above water. No one significant affiliated with the Yankees other than Arod has really been ripped in 10 years anyway, so why should Cashman be any different?

Count me out of the "WS ring or bust" crowd. 9 straight division titles and 11 straight post season appearances is quite remarkable in the history of sports. Other teams actually do have high quality major league caliber baseball players.

As for the next manager, dunno if I'd want to be the manager after Torre. If you don't win it all right away, folk will be calling for your scalp too. Maybe much better to be the manager after the manager after Torre.

17 My point is that your hypthosis contains a problamatic proposition because of its wording. All GMs who are still in their job ipso facto are better at keeping their jobs than at building a winning team, regardless of how much (or how little) winning they do (except. maybe, by building a team that wins every game).

I do not necessarily reject the presumed underlying premise of your post--that a given GM may not have done enough to warrant keeping his job, or that a given GM may be very good at handling the media. I do, however, object to the precise wording of your hypothesis because as currently constructed, it creates a tautology.

18 I was sure I had heard on the news that a man who would only identify himself as "Scott P." had volunteered to throw all 25 innings of a marathon charity softball game in NYC to benefit various cancer-researching organizations.

What time is your company softball game anyway?

15 And at an age where his kids want him around.

16 Hard to say now. Let's see what, if anything, happens at the trading deadline.

21 Again - enough to keep his job.

This isn't Schuerholz spending at the middle of the pack and getting a winning team year after year. Cashman spends twice as much as Schuerholz and gets the same results. And when Cashman tries to cut payroll by a mere 20%, they start losing more. Not surprising when you look at where and how he cut costs.

23 So now where going to play semantics? :)

And if you want to get picky about statements 16 Matsui is below average in LF. In RF at Yankee Stadium he'd be a disaster.

Damon in CF is already a losing proposition, especially relative to Melky.

And the best possible hitters in the market slot better in the OF than DH.

Pie in the sky type daydreaming here, but considering the static between LaRussa and Pujols, how insane would it be to have a move that brings him to first base?

So insane it will never happen, but good God, that would be a beautiful thing.

I have to agree with 3 8 that at least statistically, Giambi had been much better than Damon this year as a DH (see Replacement Level's offensive analysis http://tinyurl.com/25nqjf linked to by Alex a couple days ago here on Banter). It's true that Melky might not have seen as much outfield, but you can't really blame that on Giambi. Damon should be DL'd until he can straighten himself out and hopefully will be if Giambi can return.

This thread became predictable in a hurry.

Anyone else see 2 coming a mile away? Now, if we can just get the ol' Dead Horse back up and posting again, it will be like we have had the same thread for a week straight!

30 Yeah, NJYankee41's predictable ability to correct his typos has become the fatal flaw in the Bronx Banter.

;-)

Whoops! and by 2 of course I mean 3...

31 Jerk :)

For a change of pace, check out Joe Sheehan's latest article on BP (free this week!)

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=6438

In it he has some notes about Chien-Ming Wang, including the line, "It's fair to say that merely looking at his strikeout rate and making a clucking sound isn't going to suffice." Perhaps some of the "statheads" are coming around to embrace Wang as an exception to the K-Rate-Above-All Mantra.

His notes about fans at Yankee stadium are interesting, too.

25 Oh, what the hell.

"This isn't Schuerholz spending at the middle of the pack and getting a winning team year after year. Cashman spends twice as much as Schuerholz and gets the same results. And when Cashman tries to cut payroll by a mere 20%, they start losing more."

First: by your criterion, Schuerholz has been a failure. After all, winning the division and making the playoffs doesn't count for anything, right? The Braves have won one lousy championship; clearly, they suck, and so does Schuerholz.

Second, I like the idea that the Yankees have started losing more over the last few years. Yes, I suppose you're right. After winning 100+ games three times in a row, they "slipped" to 95 and 97 wins. Of course, winning 100+ games three times in a row is a stupendous achievement; only four other teams have done it, and none of them won 100 in year 4.

You can't assemble a team to win a championship, you have to assemble it for the long season. You have to get to October before you can win, and those last couple of weeks are a crapshoot. In fact, your biggest complaints about Cashman - bench, BUC, position prospects, and even 1b - have a lot to do with winning during the season and almost nothing to do with the postseason.

But then, what do I know. I've chosen to live in ignorance.

26 Crap--I wrote and then lost a post...

I agree entirely with your evaluation of Matsui/Damon, but I have resigned myself to the reality that Damon is going to start next year regardless of how many body parts fall off between now and then. That means he will play: LF, CF, RF, DH, 1B.

We know he can't really play CF, even if healthy; he will not hit enough to warrant 1B or DH, and the jury is still out as to whether he can actually play 1B in the field. So, that leaves LF and RF, where he also won't hit enough, but it won't be as much of a loss as playing him at 1B/DH.

He will have more speed than Matsui, but a weaker arm--so I would opt for Damon in LF (again, if he must start). That displaces Matsui, either to DH or RF. His poor range in LF may actually be helped by playing in the stadium's cozy RF, but he will probably continue to be a poor defensive OF. What are ya' gonna do?

The best hitters in the market probably do slot better at OF than DH, but it doesn't really matter in a way. Let's say the team picks up the best hitter, who also happens to be a RF. So, start him in RF and Matsui at DH, or start him at DH and Matsui on RF--the same bats will be in the line-up. Just put whoever is the best defensively in the OF.

Funny. I may be repetitive (even when I wanted specific insight from Will in his thread), but it's been a long time coming since 29 and 32 have added anything original around here. Shoot, even their pot shots at me are unoriginal. Maybe they'll say something interesting by the end of the year.

Meanwhile, Goldman is superb in his mid-season grades:

http://www.nysun.com/pf.php?id=58144&v=4290714811

For example:

DESIGNATED HITTER — JOHNNY DAMON, D

If Abreu pulled the trigger, Damon was driving the getaway car. Damon has played hurt, which can be viewed as a plus inasmuch as the Yankees have no one to replace him. Still, you'd have to think that Josh Phelps or Kevin Thompson or Shelley Duncan or anyone would have done better than the .211/.301/.303 Damon has hit since the end of May. Damon loathes the disabled list, but sometimes being a gamer means knowing when not to play. If the Yankees are serious about pulling out the second half, they'll try to find a way to get some offense from this purely offensive position.

37 Yeah, don't get me started on Johnny Damon. We all know your position on Cashman, but it's pretty hard to refute the fact that he did not have final say over decisions in the 2004 offseason. If he had, I'm certain that the Yankees would have Carlos Beltran, Vladamir Guererro, and Javy Vasquez. Sure that doesn't solve 1B or BUC, but it makes the team younger and more prepared for 2007 and beyond than Sheff, Damon, and RJ have been/will be.

Sadly, that's in the past and the Yankees need to now deal with what many of us predicted- that the final two years of Damon's contract would severely limit the team's options.

Jim Dean, you need to be more clear in your definitions of what is a good GM first before continuing the discussion of "kick the Cashman". If getting winning the World Series is your definition of a good GM, then who is a good GM? Just the St. Louis Cards GM?

Is Billy Beane a bad GM? Is Atlanta's Scheurholtz? How many divisions did Atlanta win in a row with only one WS win to show for it?

Please define what a good GM is (according to you) and then we can discuss whether Cashman is one. Otherwise this discussion like all the others will just infuriate and go in circles.

38 The frustrating thing about the Damon situation, in my opinion, is that the Yankees have such financial advantages that his contract doesn't NEED to limit their options. They overpaid to get the best (?) CF on the market at that time because they needed him. OK. They probably figured to get two good years, maybe three if lucky, and two (or one) bad years. OK. So make him the fourth OF. It doesn't matter how much he is being paid--that's a sunk cost. And with Damon as a reserve (and hopefully somewhat healthy), the bench gets a major upgrade.

They have the resources--if they would only use them better.

I guess you can count me in the "WS ring or bust" crowd. I have never understood why Jeter gets criticized for saying that he wants to win the WS every year and that he feels like he has failed if he doesn't. I feel like with the resources the Yankees have at their disposal and with the talent that we put out on the field year after year, winning the WS is a realistic goal.

However, I do understand that everyone does not feel this way and I would probably be a lot easier to live with during the month of November if I didn't take the Yankees so seriously (hey, I have already admitted that I am a Yankeeholic, but I am still only on step 1).

I do agree with William 7 that making the playoffs and winning the division are important, but for me those things are somewhat hollow if they are not followed by a WS win (I guess that makes me spoiled, but rooting for a team that has appeared in 1 out of 3 WS and won 1 out of 4 will tend to spoil you).

As for the Cashman debate, I look at it like this: The Yankees have been in a position to make it to the playoffs every year for the last decade. To me, the front office is doing their job of putting us in a position to win. It's up to the manager and the players to perform in the postseason. Unfortunately, this can be difficult since the playoffs are a crap shoot with the short first round.

Ultimately, while I would like for us to win the WS every year and I am extremely disappointed when we don't, I think it is very difficult to determine who is to blame when it does not happen.

34 What's fascinating about Schuerholz is he was forced to significantly cut payroll and he still consistently won. Meanwhile, Cashman chose to cut payroll (as a part of his "I should get all the power/win AND make money" pitch) and the team has gotten worse. The difference in payroll is the difference in acquiring Abreu at the deadline for scrubs - Cashman's "best" move of the last year. Meanwhile, Atlanta is still in the hunt this year.

And I disagree strongly with this crapshoot sentiment. I don't know why it's so popular. Because it's a long season, and with the wildcard, the best teams make it in. And the ones that win are very often the very best of that bunch. For instance, of the last six years, I'd say only two got good (2003 Marlins, 2006 Cards) at the right time. And otherwise, the teams they played were probably second best in baseball.

Meanwhile, the 2001 Dbacks, 2002 Angels, 2004 Sox, 2005 Sox were all very very good - there was little crapshooting involved other the games getting played.

In other words, I refuse to believe that how far a team goes in the playoffs tells us nothing about how good they are.

38 Cashman still signed Damon. You can pin that one squarely on him. He could have been more creative there. And if he's signing Mghdkjf and Cairo and keeping Nieves all on his own, what moves would he have made if Tampa hadn't stepped in?

Funny, I seem to end up spending my team finding new and inventive ways to answer your nearly identical posts, JD...It's pretty amazing that you can make even people who agree with you on various issues start arguing with you, a real talent.

/rant
See, the thing is, I don't think you'll find anyone, or at least very few, who will claim Cashman has been perfect, or even that he is the best at his job. On the other hand, most of us realize that all things considered, the Boss, the town, the media, the pressure etc, the potential price of someone else running the ship could be far worse (the 1980s teams were just good enough to come in second, PLUS there was no farm system). You can rail all you want about replacing Cashman, but the fact of the matter is, after 2001, George DEMANDED that the Yanks start signing big FAs and took over the signings of Giambi, Sheff, Unit etc, and is largely responsible for the increased payroll. No team has been as good as the Yankees throughout his time as GM, no team has been to the WS more, no team has won more WS etc. (Again, this is all repetition, as it has been said over and over again). In the end, I think you have just worn everyone out. We can debate endlessly with you, getting nowhere and not learning anything we don't already know, or we can just try and ignore you, which also doesn't seem to work. What do you want us to say, "Wow, Jim Dean, you're right, Cashman is the worst GM in baseball and should be fired. Why the heck aren't YOU the GM?" Or, "Wow, Cashman's total failure to account for the back up catcher position and first base is a ringing indictment of his tenure, and negates anything else he has done. Combined with his personal failure to win this team a world series title since 2000, well, he's gotta go." And even if we did say that, so what? Then what?

39 I wish I had an answer for you. But it ain't Cashman.

Why?

His moves plus the money spent plus the results. Change any of those and he could be good. Beane gets bonus points because of the money and the results. Schuerholz too. But give them the Yankee job and they may do no better.

I think the question is akin to what investors look for in a CEO. You know it when you see it.

I'll let others come up with rankings. In mine, Cashman is somewhere in the middle of the pack. He's okay but there's plenty of room for improvement. And those are areas where many horses have been slain.

Wait wait wait Jim, are you saying that last year was just a fluke for the Braves? Cause if the Yankees finish below .500 this year, as the Braves did last year (in a far far far far crappier league and division), but then finish above .500 next year, with a lower payroll (most likely it will be lower), than its all okay right? B/c thats what the Braves have done, though they are only 5 games better than the Yanks...

43 Who is you team and what have you done with your time?

Again - nothing original, even the pot shots at me. Hard to have a discussion with that. Keep trying though, sport.

"His moves plus the money spent plus the results. Change any of those and he could be good. Beane gets bonus points because of the money and the results. Schuerholz too. But give them the Yankee job and they may do no better."

I don't get it. So it comes down to the moves, is what you are saying. B/C Beane sure as heck hasn't won the WS, and Schuerholz only once. The Padres, Marlins, Twins, Brewers, and Indians all have lower payrolls then them as well...

But more so, if the moves are really what makes Cashman so much worse than those two, have you looked at Schuerholz' moves lately? Just like Cashman, for every good one there is a total dud...

Cash also has no BB experience... even after 10 years...

46 There weren't any pot shots at you, and its a lot more helpful and original than your continued "nope, nothing original, keep trying" comments. As I said, there reason there isn't anything original is b/c its all been said. Do tell me, Jim, what you have brought to the table in the last, oh, say, season, thats been somehow new? Here's a potshot: For someone so interested in starting arguments, your actual skill in arguing is not good. Refuting someone's points simply by saying "nothing new there" or "look at this #" doesn't prove or disprove anything. TO win a debate, or a trail, or any other form of argument, you need to prove, beyond the opposing argument, why your position is the stronger one. So that means, don't just throw a # out there and say, there, see, this means something, it proves so and so is good or bad, but show WHY it proves that, WHY that # is more significant than other #s, and WHY it even matters. Then, prove HOW your information is more relevant than your opponent's.

So, taking a page from the Jim Dean school of arguing 46, 42, 37, 26, 19, 17, 10, 6, 3--Nothing new here, nice try though buddy, keep up the good work...

"I think the question is akin to what investors look for in a CEO. You know it when you see it."

Wait, I thought that its all about the #s, and what you see is really just useless???

47 Read that again: moves plus the money spent plus the results.

All are important.

Schuerholz has his team in 2nd place (2 GB of the Mets) with a payroll 30 million less than (an Abreu and Jeter) than the Mets.

48 He's a middle manager. A human resources guy. No scouting experience. No playing experience. No coaching experience.

49 Shows how much you know. I'm interested in having discussions. Sorry if Cashman is a topic of conversation that generally flies under the main stream media. And if you knew anything about public relations, press releases, and media maniupulation, you understand why I asked Will if multiple stories coming out the same day on the Trenton pitching staff is the work of a savvy GM.

50 Same criteria for a CEO: moves plus the money spent plus the results.

Jim Dean, I don't know much about Cashman behind the scenes as far as how he goes about his job, but he's always been amenable and honest to media requests. He's very careful with his words, which he has to be in his position. Often that makes him sound like an organizational mouthpiece, but it's part of the job. He's very much aware of the perception of his being a puppet, which is why it was so important for him to prove himself over the past couple of years. The frustration he's shown, I believe, is that he thinks he's followed through on his vision for building a winning team and fortifying the farm system, but in some cases it hasn't worked out. It's rare that he is honest to the point of telling reporters like Tyler Kepner that this team hasn't earned the right to receive reinforcements, which is why I included that item in the thread.

I'm done. Enjoy the rest of the day folks.

I miss actual baseball.

53 Many thanks.

Can we read anything into the simultaneous reports from Trenton? It's almost like they opened the gates to all regional media. And Tyler got pulled from (left) the beat to cover the story. It's not that the reports aren't interesting. It's just that that story has been there all year.

For a guy I don't think is doing a good job, I do admire his ability to stay out of the cross-hairs.

I guess I understand his frustration because going into this season, I basically thought the Yanks were the hands-down favorites, a lot of posters and experts thought similarly. I knew there were weaknesses, especially with the pitching staff, but I thought the offense was just going to be great enough to cover them. My feeling was that the Yanks' offense was spectacular last season without the services of Sheffield and Matsui most of last year and an off-year by A-Rod. So the offense was a good bet to be even better this season.

I did not expect Damon to plummet so dramatically, especially considering all this talk in the pre-season about his body feeling better. But who could have bet on Abreu being so bad, and Giambi being a non-factor, and Cano being mediocre? I guess the answer is a better GM...maybe.

I have to see more of the Trenton reports to get a real gauge on it. To your other point, I think Cashman is most definitely in the cross-hairs. The fact that he hasn't come under severe criticism from the majority of the writers is a credit to his knowledge of how to present himself to that sector of the media, because he knows they need him. If they didn't like him, he'd be skewered. Talk radio hosts like Chris Carlin and Mark Malousis from the FAN, in some cases, Michael Kay and Brandon Tierney at ESPN Radio have gotten on him several times. Carlin in particular. So Cashman isn't completely getting off scot-free.

42 Jim, I think the reason the postseason is a "crapshoot" is because a team with two great starting pitchers can make a serious run at winning the Serious.

A team with two great SP and three below average SP might beat a team with five above average SP (but none that are great) in a short series, but probably not over a long season. That is why you hear people say that a team is "built for the playoffs" vs. a team that is "built for the regular season". The problem is that you have to make the playoffs first. That team with the two great pitchers could play in a weak division and make the playoffs, while that team with the above average pitchers could be in a tough division (hence the need for the pitching depth).

These teams might not win it all, but in a short series they could certainly upset a better team. Which is why I think the first round of the playoffs need to be tweaked, giving more of an advantage to the team with the best regular season record.

56 I have no doubt he sees it exactly that way. Except that team had a hot RH Bernie (which would help their miserable record against LHP), a fire-hot Cano and Abreu, Damon played over his head, and at least passable offense from 1B and BUC. Abreu slumping hurts, but those other things could have been expected and alternatives could have been planned. That's the GM's role - to plan for the best AND worst case scenarios.

57 Many thanks. Now if you could explain Isaiah...

Jim, I think Bill Simmons is the man to go to for an Isiah explanation. Having covered the Nets for 5 seasons, I'm partial to Rod Thorn.

58 In the last 6 years when has that scenario played out? Only 2001. And even then the Yanks just weren't a great team - the Dbacks were better. Maybe you'd argue 2004 too? But I knew the Sox were better that year - not just the pitching but the lineup too.

Lest I be called a liar 54, I'll let that be it.

but Jim, if Abreu, Damon and Cano hadn't regressed to Terrence Long, Aaron Guiel and Pat Kelly levels this division and WC race would be a lot closer. Could anyone reasonably have expected these regressions? The more I think about how bad this team has been, the more surprising I think it is. And truly I think these surprises are beyond the control of Cashman.

41 Bama, I should explain a bit more. I do want/expect the Yankees to win the WS every year and am disappointed when they don't. However, I don't think that you throw the manager or GM under the bus the minute they stop winning the WS. If you ask the fans of any other team if they would rather have had their team's success over the past 12 years or the Yankees' success, I could guarantee they'd choose the Yankees.

Here's how the Yankees have fared in the post season from 1995 onward:
95 - 97: combined 15 - 10 against other post season caliber teams.

98 - 01*: 43 - 15 (98 & 99 = 22 - 3. Sick)

*(I include 2001, as if you give me either 1) the season or 2) Mo with a one run lead in the bottom of the ninth of game 7, I take door #2)

02 - 06: 19 - 22 Yup, just 3 games under .500 despite playing 8 series against very good teams, including 3 straight WS winners.

Heck, how did the Soxes do the year after their WS titles? Not even making it back to the post season.

It is just amazing how well this team has performed in the post season since 1995. Sure I would like more titles, but you are not always going to win when the other teams are good as well.

59 Compromising photos, same as Mike Millen with the Lions.

33 That was an awesome article, thanks.

My apologies - I can't resist a good point (and yes, I know that's part of my problem).

Abreu - no argument. He's sucked and there's no prediction for it, not even more attention to his first half last year.

Damon - I don't think you can look at his 2006 and think he'd do that again. That was around the high water mark. But his 2007 he's had before - in 2001. And he's been everywhere in between since then.

Cano - Even harder to judge because of his short career. His 2007 is looking alot like his 2005. So who really knows?

rbj .... You had me until this: "Compromising photos, same as Mike Millen with the Lions." ... I don't know about Mike Millen, but perhaps Matt Millen has the photos in question.

Any chance we could get into a discussion of what the Yankees might actually do from here to improve the team via the trade market? Who actually has value and can be traded without the Yankees eating a TON of money?

Watching the game last night, I heard one of the announcers say the Padres, with all the great pitching they have, need a bat. Any chance they might want an Abreu rental? I know he has had a bad half, but he still must have some value for a team with high postseason aspirations. (they picked up Bradley but we all know he will get hurt again).

They have Kevin Kouzmanoff, who was rumored to be in the Yankee cross hairs in the offseason. He has struggled, but has some upside and may be able to play a solid 1B. Two of the their best prospects, Headley and Antonelli are 3B, so they might be willing to part with him.

How about Texiera? Would a package of Clippard, Marquez and someone like Karstens or DeSalvo be a starting point, or is that not even close? What if it was Kennedy? Would a trade like that even be worth it as he is a Boras client and a FA after next season?

Any other ideas? Possibilities?

65 Damon's whole career is flaky. He's had 115-120 OPS+ in 1999, 2000, 2004, and 2006--basically when he slugs .475 or higher.

He's had 110-115 OPS+ in 2002 an 2005, when he has the same OBP but his SLG dips some.

He's had 90-100 OPS+ in 1995, 1998, 2003; < 90 OPS+ in 1996, 1997, 2001, and 2007.

Last year wasn't really uncharacteristic, but certainly on the high end. This year is not really uncharacteristic, but on the low end.

What a weird career--he has a career 103 OPS+ but never seems to have a season representative his career norms.

67 From here on out this year, or for the future? If you're talking this year, I'm not sure what bat SD would have that could help the Yankees, and espcially not Kouzmanoff (have you looked at his line? Yikes!).

66 D'oh!

67 I'd rather Headley or Antonelli (but didn't know about them until you mentioned them). Headley could be ready next year.

71 Plus the potential for Blazing Saddles jokes would be endless!

67 Since Texiera is a Boras client, I don't think there is anyway he doesn't try the free agency market. Even if Texiera wants to stay in Texas, Boras will want him to test FA market to see what he could get.

44 Jim, define results. Short term results? Long term results? You say money spent plus moves and results. I know what "money spent" is and "moves". But I am unsure how you define good results.

74 Best to just give up.

72 How do you get words to underline? Do you use the underscore key?

75 Hey, that worked!!

World Series or bust for me too. WWDJD? is how I live my life.

Whoa- Jim Dean calling people out for being unoriginal?

I love how 5 has nothing to do with Cashman, yet 6 finds a way to make it that way.

63 "I don't think that you throw the manager or GM under the bus the minute they stop winning the WS"

Good point, I think you and I are on the same page.

evidently dan johnson is rumored to be on the block with the A's wanting to move him to bring up Barton if they don't judge themselves to be a likely contender ... twinkies are said to be interested

63 Boston made it to the playoffs in 05. But yeah- they collapsed historically a year later.

79 At the right price, I'd do it. Johnson was solid early (.316/.421/.526/.947) in April and May, and is a career .292/.414/.792/1.206 (a Ruthian OPS+ of 203) hitter in Yankee Stadium (admittedly, only in 29 PA). He's in his prime year (age 27)...anyone know what the contract would be?

63 rbj, thanks. You said that a lot better than I could have. I agree with you and Bama in 78.

62 I think that is exactly why this season has been so frustrating. No one expected Damon, Cano, and Abreu to regress so much. Add in all the pitching injuries and the loss of Giambi, and in some ways, its amazing the Yanks are just a game under .500. They could be an awful lot worse.

Jim, when I said that the postseason is a crapshoot, I didn't mean that a lousy team can win as easily as a good team. You're absolutely right, the team that wins the WS is almost always a very good team. Most of the time, the team that loses the WS is a very good team, too. Most of the other playoff teams are pretty darn good, too. The crapshoot has to do with which one of those teams is the most on top of its game at the right time.

And there's nothing a GM can do to insure that. He's responsible for putting together a very good team - which, before this year, Cashman has done. We can argue how much of this responsibility is his - or rather, we have far too often. But when a team makes the playoffs, the GM has done his job.

52"Shows how much you know. I'm interested in having discussions. Sorry if Cashman is a topic of conversation that generally flies under the main stream media." Actually, more than once you've challenged people to debate a point with you. And a discussion implies some exchange of information, which usually involves listening to someone else.

But hey, I choose to live in ignorance.

81 IIRC, Dan Johnson is arbitration-eligible for the first time after this year. With Barton coming on strong, I wouldn't be surprised if Beane tries to move him. Johnson will probably go from making $390K to $3M.

But what do the A's need?

67 Good idea. Here's what I would do to improve the team:

Try to make a trade for Saltalamacchia (would the Braves take Mussina, Farnsworth and Melky?).

Move Posada to first base.

Sign A-Rod to an extension (Steinbrenner should just offer to put A-Rod in his will and make him part owner of the team if that is what it takes).

81 you mean, is he arb-eligible? i dunno. as for the trade cost, beane's always been a fair-value exchange kinda guy, so we'd have to give up something of actual (likely) value for johnson. it kinda depends on what beane is looking for, the A's need offensive help, but if they're talking with the twins, they're going to be getting pitching back, which at least we've got to offer ...

84 around here, it's much better to live in IGNORE-ance

86 i think that schuerholz's response to that offer would be something along the lines of, "i'm sorry, i don't speak english"

well, looks like there's movement afoot to keep Arod in the Bronx:

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2933023

78 Forget the minute. Have we passed the hour, day, month, year, or decade mark?

83 The problem I have with your assumption still is that we can't learn something from a first round exit. Seeing that's been the Yankee fate each of the last two years, that's relevant. The best team rarely gets booted in the first round. Sometimes in the second round. And often in the last round if not at all.

Looking over the last ten years of playoff history, maybe only the 2001 Mariners got kicked earlier than their record would indicate. Anyone else with more?

So then to say: "there's nothing a GM can do to insure that" is just plain wrong. The GM can do everything possible to ensure that the team has the best pieces possible to go as deep as possible.

Starting Bubba Crosby in CF in a deciding game? Nope.

Starting Jaret Wright in a deciding game? Or Shef at 1B? Nope.

And this year, if nothing else worked out, Mghjfk would be starting.

So just because a team makes the playoffs doesn't mean the GM "has done their job". It simply means they were one of the top four teams in their league. After that, the best teams usually sort themselves out.

And by virtue of me responding I'm listening (how's that for a tautology?). What you want me to say "Good point" every time?

Gotta run (really!).

Donuts.

86 I'd love to get Saltalamacchia on the Yanks too Bama, but with Andruw almost certainly saying "buh-bye" to the Braves, they are going to need that kid to play 1B (and catch every once in a while). His bat might be the only one available to them that could replace (or even exceed) Andruw's.

88 Well said.

It would be nice for me if 2 things happened here.
1) People would not bring other people's Mom into any discussion
2) If you feel that someone here is flogging a Deadhorse, PLEASE DON'T RESPOND.

92 when did #1 happen, 'cause that's just uncalled for

78, 82 Thanks.

90 How about a GM who signs Jeff Weaver last year or a manager who starts him in the WS. Oh wait, those moves worked out.

My criterion is: Is the team consistently getting to the PS? You can point to bad moves by every manager. I look it as, the Yankees had been consistently over performing against high quality teams, the last couple of years, under performing -- which sabermetrically is going to happen.

Oh well, at least there's the AAA ASG tonight. At the Albuquerque Isotopes.

89 Yep...it looks like Cashman has been reading the Banter. JD...if you get a package marked BC - Bronx, NY, don't open it.

I am surprised no one else has seized on this, but should Cashman be taking any abuse for not having Arod forfeit his opt out rights when the Yankees acquired him? Other parts of the contract were renegotiated, so why not this one? Considering the market at the time, I'm sure not even Boras could fathom a point where nullifying the deal would make financial sense. Did Cashman even try? If not, perhaps this issue needs to be placed squarely in his lap (just as the Mo and Posada negotiations will if they do not go well).

88 & 91 Fair enough. I thought we should start with Moose, Farns & Melky (always start small and then work your way up to what you are really willing to offer). But if that wouldn't work, how about Moose, Farns, Abreu (adding a prospect arm if necessary). They could use Moose and Farns down the stretch this year and Abreu could allow them to trade Andruw before he walks and possibly replace his bat next year too. We would also have to pick up some salary for the guys we send them (hey, it's not my money)...

I realize all this is similar to the pipe dream of getting Pujols 27, but at least it is not a Deadhorse... ;-)

30 Whoa. Ya sacared me there for a second Zack. I thought I did something wrong.

31 But I will be more careful...I promise. I'm not about to be the one to ruin this for everyone.

89 I think that's an excellent plan. If he remains under the current contract, Texas still helps foot the bill for the next three years. That means the Yankees can offer a much more lavish extension - and the total package might then be more than he can get anywhere else.

My question regarding this: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2933023 ... Why not do the same for Mariano Rivera? He'll never say it publicly, but he'd be stewing at not being given the chance to discuss an extension or renegotiation during the season. Another story to watch now.

90 Pointless if you're not here, but still: responding may indicate that you've heard (metaphorically, of course), but that doesn't mean you've listened. For instance, if you reply to a detailed post by simply calling the poster ignorant, that's not a sign that you're listening, or even interested in discussion in the first place.

100 Maybe they have? Mo may be a free agent, but I think its generally presumed that he's going to stay. Obviously not so much with A-Rod, which is why this is a story.

As many of us said at the start of year, pay that man - whatever Mo wants, Mo should get.

92 Now I owe you dinner.

96 I think Boras did fathom a time when opting out of the deal would make sense, and that's why there are so many opt out clauses included. In any case, they are a good CYA move. I have no beef with Cashman about that.

And no, I don't expect you to say "Good point" every time - though once in a while you might consider the possibility that someone actually has made a good point. But generally, showing enough respect to absorb someone else's ideas and respond to them thoughtfully - and respectfully - would be a start.

100 Will, I'd figure that Rivera and Posada are professionals. They may not be thrilled about it, but they'd recognize that Rodriguez presents a unique situation - both as a ballplayer and as a contract. I doubt that their feathers would be so ruffled that they'd walk away because of that.

101103 i applaud your attempt (and the civility of your response when under provocation), i really do, but you'll be joining us from 88 sooner or later ...

One question that I have to ask fans here:
How good will A-rod be at the end of his new contract? And how much will he produce then?

My guess he gets a 7 year contract averaging $30 mill a year. So he will be 37 when the contract expires and hitting 35 homers and 900 OPS a year.

Why should we pay him that much for what will clearly be his lesser years?

And Jim Dean, I still await your answer to my question 74

90 "The best team rarely gets booted in the first round. Sometimes in the second round. And often in the last round if not at all.

Looking over the last ten years of playoff history, maybe only the 2001 Mariners got kicked earlier than their record would indicate. Anyone else with more?"

2006 Yankees (97 wins, most in AL) lost in 1st round to WC
2003 Braves (101 wins, most in NL) and Giants (100 wins) lost in first round
2002 Braves (101 wins, most in NL) lost in 1st round to WC
2002 Yankees and A's (both with 103 wins) lost in 1st round
2001 Astros and Cardinals (both with 93 wins, most in NL) both lost in 1st round
2000 Giants (97 wins, most in NL) lost in 1st round to WC
2000 White Sox (95 wins, most in AL) lost in 1st round to WC

Yeah, other than these, the team with the best record usually makes it out of the first round...

I believe the only time during the last 10 years that the two teams with the best records in each league made the Serious was in 1999.

105 A week or two ago I actually walked out, was quitting the Banter for good. I didn't last long, but decided the best way for me to tolerate it was to have some fun with it.

106 I don't see any reason why A-Rod won't be very very productive through his 30s. He may end up at 1B, I suppose, but I think A-Rod at 37-39 is a whole different ballgame than, say, Bernie/Damon at those ages...

106 Are you really scoffing at a guy who will give you 5 moster seasons, followed by a couple when he's only hitting 35 HR? I can live with that. Rodriguez can lose a step on the bases, a few homers and 15 points in his batting average - and still be one of the better players in the league.

106 In short, because if you don't overpay, you risk losing A-Rod. It makes much more sense to over-pay A-Rod on a yearly basis if the Yankees are just extending his contract. As williamnyy23, pointed out, that gives the Yankees enormous advantage over any team that would be giving him a brand new contract, because Texas is paying roughly a third of his salary for the next three years.

Can I just say that 54 is pretty hilarious considering 55 59 61 65 71 90?

108 I am glad you stayed, JL, I enjoy reading what you have to say. We seem to have lost some other quality commentors, which is sad to me. I hope they return.

106 109 Nate Silver did some interesting research in Baseball Between the Numbers that suggests that A-Rod's 2001 contract might have been underpaying him. And the Yanks haven't even had to foot the entire bill for him! He could be considered the bargain of the century up to this point. If the Yanks have to overpay him now to keep him, I won't mind too much.

A shorter answer would be: The Yanks need him, and if keeping him means overpaying him when he's older and in decline, that's worth it to have him now.

That A-Rod could be nearing 800 career home runs by the time he's 37 or 38 is also an acceptable answer, to me at least (its not my money!). =)

110, 106 And I think the theory of you overpay on the decline for the prime obviously works here, except that I imagine his "decline" to still be far better than most player's "primes" as 110 points out. And in addition, by the time, in theory, the Yanks will have these albatross contracts off their shoulders and be sporting a team of younger superstars, right? :)

111 Same thing happened yesterday.

JL25and3, I can attest from being around them that Rivera and Posada are both class acts, but in the same way we argued the Clemens Rule in this space, and how the Yankees went out of their character to bring Roger on board, I can envision a similar situationgoing on behind closed doors here regarding A-Rod. I hope that the negotiation of the contract doesn't become a divisive element to the team dynamic, especially since a valid argument can be made that they're the three most important components to the Yankees doing anything in the second half.

110 I don't think we will get 5 monster years from Arod. He has been here 3 years and so far we have only 1. Maybe this year will be another monster year but that is still no guarantee. The same Arod that gave us 1297 OPS in April also gave us a 783 OPS in May. The season is halfway done but there is still time for a slump to bring Arod's guady numbers down to earth.

I think we are getting ahead of ourselves projecting 1000 OPS seasons for the next several years. When he was 28, he gave us 887 OPS, then 1031 OPS and then 915 OPS. Realistically, is it reasonable to expect 1000 OPS from Arod the next few seasons. Yes. Clearly, his decline will still put up better numbers than most people's decline.

But what I argue is that $30 million of even Arod's decline could be better spent on someone else's prime (say Florida's Miguel Cabrera) and with greater return. Instead of spending and locking up $30 mill on a player who will be declining, we could use the money on the next "young A-rod" or the next Manny Ramirez, etc...

I think we are looking at another Vladimir Guerrero vs Sheffield situation. We got Sheff who was older but clearly put up great numbers. But in the end, if we had Guerrero instead, we would have had no loss in production and we wouldn't be worried about RF for another 3 years.

When Arod is 38 and putting up 850 OPS while playing 1st base or DH, he will be earning $30 million dollars. Tell me you won't be griping about that. Especially if Miguel Cabrera is playing for the Red Sox...

Here is what the PECOTA thinks Arod will do in the next few years:
I tried to line up the numbers but clearly didn't succeed.

Year PA R HR RBI MLVr AVG OBP SLG EqA VORP Defense WARP
2007 (age 31) 651 107 34 107 0.207 0.285 0.389 0.538 0.319 48 152-3B -3 7.4
2008 (age 32) 652 107 31 106 0.195 0.29 0.397 0.536 0.318 47.4 152-3B -4 7
2009 (age 33) 623 95 29 98 0.138 0.282 0.382 0.515 0.307 36 145-3B -7 5.7
2010 (age 34) 530 73 24 81 0.118 0.277 0.376 0.509 0.304 26.6 125-3B -6 4.6
2011 (age 35) 511 70 24 79 0.122 0.278 0.376 0.512 0.303 22 120-3B -10 3.5

Now I am not saying I believe these numbers to be true. But PECOTA is one of the better projection systems out there. $30 mill a year almost demands a guarantee in top tier performance.

116 A-Rod hasn't had an ops+ lower than 119 since his second year, and an ops+ lower than 130 only in 97 of that span. I'd say counting on an ops+ of around 135 is fairly realistic over the term of the deal, and that would make him about a David Ortiz, but thats expecting a tail off at the end and a conservative estimate. I'll take it...

118 You want to spend $30 million on 135 OPS+ ??? That's a .290 hitter with 35 homers. You don't think you can get that for cheaper?

Even if he averages 40 homers for 7 years (which PECOTA thinks is unlikely), $30 million seems a lot to pay for that kind of production, especially when we know there will younger players who will be the next superstar. We really are assuming that he will not get injured at any point either. If he misses any portion of a season, then that contract becomes really onerous -- cf Jason Giambi.

As a point in comparison, Arod's contract is going to make Vlad Guerrero's $13mill/year contract look really cheap. Vlad has the same career OPS+ as Arod and is 6 months younger.

I don't believe A-Rod will get close to $30M/year. No way. I predict it will be about $20M/year.

To my mind, it makes most economic sense for the Yankees to sign him (rather than some other team, I mean). Because the Yanks get a great bargain compared to any other team (except the Rangers), since Texas picks up a lot of the tab. Now, obviously, A-Rod may have non-economic reasons for wanting to go somewhere else, I'm just talking economics.

I also think there is a hard-to-pin-down economic benefit of having a Yankee chase the HR record, some years down the line. It seems to me that for the Giants, the benefit is having the heat of the spotlight turned their way for a season, but for the Yankees it's a bit different. The Bombers clearly get a lot of money from the 'grand tradition', the 'winningest franchise in all of sports' kind of thing, and having a legend chase a legendary record helps keep that alive.

In short, I don't agree that with a seven year contract the Yankees would be vastly overpaying Alex by 2014.

118 Ortiz for the Red Sox has averaged 155 OPS+. His career average is 137 OPS+ but that includes some bad years early on.

121 If Arod puts up 50 homers this year, Boras is going to use it push for $30 mill a year. That is the number that has been bandied about in the press recently. If he is making $25 mill while hitting 50 homers and becomes a free agent, surely he gets a raise? (At least Boras would argue something to that effect.)

Would a team like San Fran who needs to replace Bonds pay that kind of money? Or the Angels? Maybe.

The economic benefit of a HR chase is less than the benefit of making the playoffs. The yanks already sell 4 million seats a year. They can't sell more in a new stadium since there are few seats. But those are empty seats if they don't make the playoffs. Someone needs to do the cost benefit analysis and see if sinking $30 mil into one players is worth it.

I am guessing not. Especially on a team where Jeter will cost $20 mil and there will be other superstars who need to be paid as well (Wang in a few years, Cano?, etc...)

It looks like the extensions are flying fast and furious. Travis Hafner reportedly has agreed to a 4-year/$57mn deal. At $14mn per, Hafner's 154 career OPS+ looks like a relative bargain.

Clearly, Ichiro and Arod contribute on defense, but there does seem to be a disconnect between Hafner's deal and the numbers being tossed around for Arod and Ichiro.

I love Arod, but if the figure does get up to the $30mn level, the Yankees should walk away, especially if they can swing a deal for Cabrera. Now, one thing to remember is that a Cabrera deal might cost Joba Chamberlain, so that needs to be considered as well. Still, for '$30mn, the Yankees could probably sign Cabrera to a backloaded deal and ink one of the CF's, or really get creative and see if Manny would like a one or two year deal.

Regardless of what the Yankees do, it's good to see that they are being proactive. The Yankees two advantages are Texas is paying $21mn and only they can deal with Arod until the end of the World Series. By talking to Boras now, the Yankees are taking advantage of both.

122 I assume you meant to refer to 120.

Who cares what Boras says? A guy with the highest contract in the history of baseball can't expect to get a raise in his thirties. (He can certainly hope to, but he can't expect to.)

Angels or Giants: sure, they might be very interested, but that's why I pointed out that the Yankees are in a superior position, economically speaking. They can offer more overall money, because the Rangers will pay some of it.

I have no idea whether the economic benefit of chasing the HR record is as big as the benefit of making the playoffs -- I doubt anyone knows, since it's only happened two times! But I have no doubt there are more than a couple of employees at River Ave. who work on just that type of question.

123 I agree on all counts!

19 I'm not sure the Giambi comparison is appropriate. Giambi has not only been injured, he is completely immobile even when healthy--essentially he was always at best a 1B, but more realistically a full time DH. Plus his contract was taken on when the team already had signed Bernie, Jeter, MUssina, and Clemens to big deals.

With A-Rod, you are looking at a better athlete who will almost certainly contribute more defensively as he ages. At the same time, his contract (if extended) will become more costly as the team sheds longterm deals.

$30 million/year--if that is the number--will almost certainly be too much. But the Yankees are one of teh teams that can afford to overpay selectively. A-Rod seems to be worth that risk.

126 Grrr. That was aimed at 119.

By the time Boras The Spider is done spinning his magic web, A-Rod will own the Chicago Cubs. That's where I see this thing headed.

126 Exactly right. I'll bet A-Rod is still playing 3B (well) when he's 37.

I don't care much for OPS+ when comparing players, because it doesn't account for position. A 3B who hits 30+ HRs with an OPS over .900 is outstanding, because there are so few 3Bs who do that. Change 3B to RF, and its not quite the same - lots of RF hit for big power. Change 3B to SS, and there's a reason A-Rod caused drooling.

116 123 I may be in the minority, but I wouldn't touch Cabrera with a 20 foot pole. All I've heard this year is how he's put on so much weight, how he's a DH in the making, and how his work ethic is poor. He's not especially speedy or athletic, so he's not likely to age well. And while he's put up some very good numbers, he has not put up spectacular numbers. A-Rod is a far better player, and IMHO, is likely to be for the next few years. Maybe even if Cabrera gets his act in line.

I want to resign ARod badly, but numbers like $30m are insane. I can't see any team doing that for more then 4 years or so.

If ARod wants a 7-8 years contact, I can't see any team investing $200m.

How may big/multiyear contracts have there been? How many feel those deals were worth it. Even the Sox, at 8/$160 for Manny, wanted out. That deal ends at Manny being 36.

How many players have a higher career OPS+ then ARod (I think Manny does)?

The Yanks have a $30m advantage. At 7 years, thats $4m+ a year. They should be able to out bid anyone. I'd offer 7/189 max. Thats $27m per, but costs us $23.

Someone may have posted something similar, I am behind in my Toaster reading.

But...

I am making a prediction: the Yanks will make the playoffs.

Here's why: as you guys know the Pythaogrean projection, a formula that uses Runs Scored and Runs Allowed, to predict a team's expected win/loss ratio has historically been the best predictor of a team's year. It's quite rare that a team finishes more then 3-4 games outside of the Pythagorean when they have been consistent all year.

Well, the Yanks Pythagorean has been pretty consistent all year, showing them to be a team well above .500. Put simply, they have just had very bad luck, as their 6-14 record in 1 run games shows. Their current RS/RA Pythagorean shows them to be at 12 games above .500 and 2.5 games behind the Red Sox. The enclosed spreadsheet shows a full year prediction of where the Yanks should end up if they play to their Pythagorean average through the end of the year, and all other teams play to theirs.

To do that the Yanks should need to win 92 games. Not enough to take the division, but enough to take the wildcard and make the playoffs.

Yes, that means going 49 out of 77, or .636 the rest of the season. But given their schedule (and those of their AL counterparts) and given their history the past few years of playing well-over .600 baseball after the All Star break, that is doable. This doesn't even include a second-half Red Sox swoon, which I expect.

So here's my prognostication: the Yanks make the playoffs on the wildcard.

You heard it here first if it happens.

128 And that's why the Cubs are out as a destination. There's no way that ownership mess gets sorted out in time to bid on any free agents this upcoming offseason, except for Big Z. Unless they sell to Cuban, given how much money the Cubs have already got tied up in long term deals, no incoming owner is going to add $30M on to that - especially since they won't have WGN to hide money with anymore.

119 I was giving a low ball scenario. A 130 OPS+ is about the minimum to expect, but there is no reason not to expect that for the MAJORITY of the contract, A-Rod continues to put up 150 OPS+.

I don't think if the Yanks extend his contract, it will come out to 30 million a year, more like 25 probably

But what keeps getting lost in this is that, why is it such a big deal if the Yanks DO pay him that much money. Remember, the Yankees, right now, NEED A-Rod. That, combined with the fact that the Yankees will be getting rid of their bad contracts slowly, and, most importantly, that money really doesn't matter to them (they will only be making MORE money with the new stadium), and isn't signing A-Rod to this kind of extension Far far far better than trading for Cabrera and giving up some of our best prospects (that would take at least Joba and Tabata most likely, along with at least one other top guy)...

Just because the Yankees extend A-rod for a lot of money isn't going to be what keeps them from signing some player, period. They will resign Jorge and Mo, and even if they don't, God forbid, it won't be because of A-Rod. They are going to be replacing Moose, Andy, Roger, Abreu, and the crappy BP guys, with younger and cheaper guys as soon as next year/this year, so in no way does extending A-Rod for even, I don't know, 40 million per, restrict their movements.

Is A-Rod worth 30 million per year? Who knows? It doesn't matter though. What matters is, is he worth overpaying to keep? And that is most certainly a yes.

Only new piece of information I can add:

According to Cot's, A-Rod's been paid, on average, 16 mil/year by the Yanks since 2004 and will be until 2010.

http://mlbcontracts.blogspot.com/2005/01/new-york-yankees_111398168678860040.html

"waived NTC 2/04, allowing trade to NY with 7 years/$183M remaining

* Texas agreed to pay remaining $4M in signing bonus & $67M of remaining $179M in salary

* New York agreed to pay $112 of the remaining $179M in salary"

So do the math:

112/7 = 16 million/year.

And considering his market value (argue it's been inflated or not - it still was determined in the open market), the Yanks will have saved almost 70 million in salary over the course of his contract.

In other words, that allows them to overpay significantly now, and still get him at a bargain on an extension:

5 years @ 30 mil/year = 150 million - 67 saved = 93 mil/5 = ~18 million/year.

or even (as an extreme)

5 years @ 40mil/year (the press would love that!) = 200 million - 67 mil saved = 133 mil/5 = 26 million/year.

The point: Yankees will have gotten A-Rod at or below market prices for the length of his contract. I don't expect these facts in the mainstream media.

Toodles.

126, 129 Yeah, you guys said it better than I did...

130 But the Yanks will only be extending A-Rod's contract, not throwing it out for a whole new one. At most, it will be for 5 more years, and it would probably be front loaded. There is no way the Yanks give up on the money paid by Texas. if that's the only way A-Rod will stay in NY, then (and it won't happen this way) the Yanks will let him walk...

134 That, my friend, is a good contribution :)

136 It's also original :)

137 hear hear!

138 (hint hint)

139 And here I thought 137 might have been that rare bit of self-deprecating humor. And you were doing so well...

134 A-Rod's current contract has been a sunk gain. His past Yankee paychecks are irrelevant to how much he's worth in the future.

Now, there's an argument that the next years of his contract are very cheap and it's worth paying a premium to buy them and keep Texas paying for him to play for us. But I don't think that's your argument.

This doesn't have anything to do with the current Yankees (although the Yankees of the '50s are featured prominently), I just finished watching "Brooklyn Dodgers: The Ghosts of Flatbush". I thought it was excellent, and recommend it for all the baseball fiends on this site.

140 (hint hint)

141 Care to explain yourself? Irrelevant is easy say ("That's irrelevant!"), harder to show, especially when none of us can see their books.

What is indisputable: They will have saved 71 million below market prices (again, argue they didn't set that market all you'd like) over the course of their contract with him.

Only about half, if we're just basing our numbers on averages, has been spent if you mean factored into previous budgets (Look at all we saved on A-Rod - let's bid 25 million on this Igawa guy!). But by rolling over those savings (however big or small), A-Rod's extension is a bargain compared to what other teams can offer. Thus Yankees will have gotten A-Rod at or below market prices for the length of his contract. 134

The only way that changes is if the Yanks paid so high above market prices in the extension that their savings were rendered moot. That leaves open the question of what his current market price is. And isn't that likely to be the main topic of discussion, as is always the case in contract negotiations?

If I say any more, I fear we'd dip our toes back into that pool of the unoriginal as the rest of the thread nicely hashes out the other issues involved. Actually, I think that's already happened.

34 It's also wrong. For the 3 years, 2008-2010, Texas is paying $29m of ARod current contract. I've seen it a number of places in MM, although I've seen the number at $30m in some.

If we extend ARod'c contract, we start with a $29m+/- leg up.

The $67m was over the 7 year life of the contract. $37m+/- has been used us already.

We are unbelievably lucky that Theo screwed it up, and this was a real coup for Cashman. It makes up for a lot of Terrance Longs.

144 So quick to jump in the fray, eh?

"Only about half, if we're just basing our numbers on averages* 143

If it you want to nitpick, it was $71m (salary and signing bonus).

On the Theo point, you're right. But it was the whole ownership group too.

145 BTW: If Cashman gets credit (you know, if he was in control) for A-Rod in 2004, then surely he also gets credit for the disastrous free agent signings the following winter (Pavano, Wright, Womack). And, well, those aren't Terrence Long type deals.

Nice try though. You almost slipped that praise by me AND got me to agree to it. You know, since all my statements are parsed for historical and tautological consistency.

132 I was half-kidding when I posted 128 but in the light of day it's not as crazy as I initially thought.

A-Rod as an owner/player of the Chicago Cubs? Why not? He and Boras could easily scratch up an investment group and a hefty down payment.

And who needs WGN when you can have "A-Rod TV" 24/7? "Cubbieography" and all that.

Boras is thinking BIG. Bill Gates BIG. You could hear it in his voice on the radio the other day.

$30 million per and a monument at the new "House That A-Rod Built" would be nice -- but not as nice, nice, very nice as OWNING THE CHICAGO CUBS.

129 OPS+ doesn't adjust for position, but it does take care of variables like league and park effects. I like normalizing the offensive numbers and then being more subjective in my defensive evaluations. I think everyone knows that Arod at an OPS+ of 140 is much more valuable than Manny at an OPS+ of 150.

I also agree with you that teams need to be cautious on Cabrera because of his less than inspiring work ethic. He is still on 24 though (some of the top hitting prospects in the game are near that age). Where I disagree is your assertion that he hasn't put up spectacular numbers. His career OPS+ thus far is 144. Arod's is 147. Every study on aging patterns suggests that Arod should soon begin a decline and Cabrera should be rising to his peak. Of course, taken out of the black box, we know that Arod has a supreme work ethic and Cabrera's has been questioned. These are all factors to consider.

130 Active players with an OPS+ higher than Arod are: Bonds (183), Pujols (167), Thomas (158), Manny (156), the much maligned Giambi (149), Thome (149) and Vlad (148). As you can see, only Arod plays a high-end defensive position.

According to everything I understand about the Arod deal, the Yankees physically receive $21mn over the last three years of the contract from Texas, with the Rangers also agreeing to assume an added portion on a deferred basis. That makes calculations a bit more confusing, but I think the safest assumption is to start with the premise that the Yankees have Arod signed to a 3-year/$48mn deal.

This is a HUGE starting point advantage. Let's assume there is a team willing to go to $210mn for 7 years. Well, to match, the Yankees can simply offer Arod a $129mn/4 year extension. That allows Boras to say he negotiated a $32mn/year deal, but allows the Yankees to hold onto Arod for a total cost of $177mn/7years, or $25mn per year, which would have to be a bargain because its less than his current annual salary. The Yankees can also get creative with bonus money upfront as well as extending him another opt out clause in 3 years. Time and money is on the Yankees side. All they have to do is hope Arod isn't fed up with the city and the organization.

148 By the way...Gary Sheffield is right behind Arod at an OPS+ of 146. Damn that was a bad trade and I really hate that I was in favor of it at the time.

149 Well said.

149 "All they have to do is hope Arod isn't fed up with the city and the organization."

... and that he doesn't have bigger plans like, say, OWNING THE CHICAGO CUBS.

150 My initial reaction to the Sheff trade was that Cashman got jobbed.

148 OPS+ is a fine stat, but that lack of positional adjustment bothers me. Just a personal thing, I guess. If you look at VORP (which adjusts for everything OPS+ does, but compares to positional replacement level, not league average), the difference in their first four full seasons is huge. A-Rod has 316.6 VORP for '96-'99; Cabrera has 230.1 for '03-'07 (so admittedly incomplete).

But this is really an apples vs oranges question, both are outstanding players, and both statistics have their (well-known) strengths and weaknesses.

146 You just aren't going to give up on the Cashman thing, are you?

152 I remember that. I think it was you and someone else. I'm so sorry for doubting your true wisdom.

To be fair, I think alot of it depends on what Cashman knew and when did he know it. Sanchez looked like a great get if he were healthy. We heard he was injured. I, for one, did not hear Tommy John's name until the Spring. If Cashman got a prospect who he knew would need TJ, then he certainly got jobbed.

153 When he gets fired or the Yanks win another ring under his helm. If the former, I know I'll still bitch and moan against the next guy, but hopefully it's less often. If the latter, I'll promptly STFU (but only about Cashman) with a two to three year grace period afterwards.

154 I might seem wise now, but my initial reaction to the trade had little to do with Sanchez, whom I didn't know much about. It was based more on my feeling that Sheff would bounce back and rake this year, and it was beyond me why the Yanks would forsake his right-handed bat to the benefit of an AL contender.

Cue JL25and3 "good riddance to Sheff" post...

150 williamnyy23, if you wouldn't mind, would you drop me an e-mail: yankeemyths (at) gmail (dot) com

Thanks.

156 I've been expecting JL to pop up too, Sliced.

152 I think you're joking, but Forbes places the price tag on the Cubs at $600mn. Where is Arod going to come up with that kind of money? That's too rich for even his blood. Also, I don't think Boras wants to exit the lucrative agent business so he can be on the other end.

156 Even more props for your divination abilities. Perhaps Hogwarts has a position for you?

Me, I thought his comeback was iffy, based on wrist injuries and age, and where he'd play. But looking back I realize now, that they could have insisted he'd be the DH (Giambi at 1B) without an extension and still signed Mghkd as insurance (and still a horrible signing.)

158 Seriously, the guy has an operation going.

But if any franchise is severely undervalued, it's the Cubbies. There's alot of money that could be made there if the business was run better. They've got a sold-out ball park every game, international recognition, and historical significance. They should easily be worth closer to the Yankees and Sox.

158 I was joking, but now think about it: $600 mill? A-Rod and Boras could easily come up with 51% of that between them, and a small team of investors making them the principal owners. If Cuban is in the mix they could purchase the team outright.

I think a franchise in transition like the Cubs would offer A-Rod up to $300 million ($30 mill. per for 10 years) to end his career and break the home run record in a Cubs uniform.

Heck, A-Rod has enough money by now. He could probably take ownership of the Cubs with NO MONEY DOWN if he agrees to play out his career at Wrigley.

Boras is the King of Creative Financing. He could make this happen. Not saying it will happen, but who are we mere mortals to say it couldn't?

153 The problem with VORP is it accounts for position, but not quality of defense. Also, you can't really compare Arod and Cabrera on VORP over their first four years because Arod was a SS (inflating his value over his current position) and Cabrera played a lot of OF (deflating his value below his current his position).

123 162

Another point to consider regarding the departure of A-Rod and possibly trading for Miguel Cabrera is that although the Yankees would probably give up Joba Chamberlian, they would get two first round picks from whatever team signs A-Rod, thus giving the Yankees three chances to replace Chamberlain in the 2008 amateur draft. Also that is possibly the longest sentence I've written in years.

More to the point, it's also a question of whether Cabrera can get his weight under control enough to play 3B for the next seven years. He would still be valuable if he had to move back to LF, but it's much easier to find similar production from an outfielder.

It's not my money, but I think the Yankees have to offer the $32 million/year extension you mentioned, if only because it sets the bar so high that Boras will realise no one can match it on the open market.

Assuming A-Rod wants to finish his career as a Yankee, of course.

146 Jim... even the best GMs make bad moves. The only one's that don't are the ones that simply can't afford big contracts, and like Billy Bean, only buy undervalued players (as opposed to players they'ld really like).

Theo is pretty good, but he botched the ARod deal, looks bad on Nancy and Lugo, gave away some high end talent, etc. How about Zito, Meche and to a lesser extend Soriano and that ilk?

When you play to win, you take chances. Who knew that JD would be (relatively) healthy and still be a dud? Who knew CocaCrispy would regress offensively? Who knew SS Cabrera would become an offensive force?

You can run numbers all day but sometimes you go out and get someone and cross your fingers. Call that the RJ philosophy.

It's just cheap to harp on Cashman's mistakes (or what you THINK are mistakes, as you don't know who is really available to the Yanks, and who Cash has tried to get but couldn't).

All great, successful people have had a fair share of failures. Cashman inherited a very good team, but one that had a depleted farm, and a team comprised of aging, very expensive players. He HAS improved the farm vastlty. After next year, our payroll could drop monumentally (Clemens kinda screwed things up this year). He did NOT go after the crop of overpriced players last year, many of whom will be a real drain on their team.

And... I'm sorry to 'fall for the bait' and respond to you, as your constant and insistant need to beat the same issues to death, day after day, week after week, are diving people away in droves. Obviously, you don't care. Your NEED to aire your opinion obviously supercedes the desires of many of the participants here.

So I promise... no matter how much shit you talk, how many erronious statements you make, how many dialog games you play, how many times you avoid giving reasonable answers to people who debate you... I'm done with it.

And not done like you were in 54.
Done.
I hope others here will make the same vow.

(and that means no dinner invite for you).

156, 157 Here I am. Good riddance to Sheff.

Of course, I think one of the best things about this team is that they don't have Sheffield anymore. I won't bother with a full rant, since you've all got that memorized, but I do think a little context is called for.

Where were the Yankees going to play Sheffield? In RF, Abreu was clearly a safer bet than Sheffield. It may not have worked out that way for half of this season, but no one could have foreseen that. DH wasn't an option, so that left 1B. But Sheffield was brutal in his tryout there last year, thre was no way to know if he could be even adequate there, and he was already bitching about playing first before they traded him. There was the real possibility that Sheffield wouldn't have been happy playing first base - imagine how he'd react if he was having trouble there, while both he and the Yankees were getting off to a slow start.

And as we know, if Gary Sheffield's not happy, you don't want him on your team.

Would you have signed Sheffield to that two-year, $28M extension? Remember, he was 38 and coming off a wrist injury, without a position. The Yankees had no obligation to give him an extension, of course, but he would definitely have been unhappy if they didn't. Take the scenario I describe above, and add in that he'd be making $13M. In a similar situation with the Dodgers, he bitched to reporters about which of his teammates were better paid but less deserving than he was. Cute.

If there's one thing that Sheffield's demonstrated over his career, it's that he demands respect, and respect = money. So when he feels he's underpaid - regardless of his salary - he's not happy. And if he's not happy, you don't want him on your team.

He's in year one with Detroit, and he's always happy in year one. He'd be in year four with the Yankees, and he's basically never happy in year four. Again - slow start with the bat, being bumped from his position by another player, losing streak by the team, paid less than teammates, maybe no extension. You think he'd be happy?

And if he's not happy, you don't want him on your team.

I don't know if they could have gotten more for him or not, and we can't really evaluate the return yet. But if the question is whether to trade Sheffield or not, I say the answer is yes every time.

164 Speaking of Theo, he traded Bard AND Meredith for an awful BUC (whom he let get away in the first place). Signed Renteria to a big deal and then had to eat the contract...and then took what was a highly touted prospect in Marte and got Coco Crisp back. Also, Theo dealt a useful Arroyo for Pena, who has wasted on the Boston bench. He also saddled the Sox offense with the likes of Loretta and Gonzalez last season.

If you try hard enough, you can easily make the case for Theo being fired. In fact, if you look at his moves this off season, they really haven't worked out. He Theo knew the other parts were going to be so good, why saddle the team with Drew and Lugo?

163 I'm pretty sure that Rodriguez's contract says that the Yankees can't offer arbitration if he opts out. I know Drew had that clause, and I believe I've read that Alex has the same deal.

And, by the way, the argument that the Yankees can use that money to sign an equally valuable replacement doesn't wash with me. There just aren't many equally valuable replacements, even if you factor age into the equation.

Miguel Cabrera might be one. But it's not a Rodriguez v. Cabrera situation, because they Yankees don't have Cabrera and may not be able to get him. It doesn't happen just because we want it to. Florida would probably ask for more than Joba - wouldn't you, if you knew the Yankees were over this barrel?

And if you can't get Cabrera, then who? That's the problem - there are very few players who could replace Rodriguez, even fewer who are available. I don't see any way the Yankees can afford to lose him.

166 Not to mention that the Red Sox have two starting pitchers over 40 and an even worse catching situation than the Yankees do... not only is thier BUC awful, so is the starting catcher. It's some consolation that they're in first place, but if the situation were reversed, people like Jim Dean would still be chirping about Cash.

Heck, I'm with 131. The Yankees go 20-9 over the next four weeks. Wang. Pettitte. Clemens. Mussina. Hughes.

168 That's why I like that the Yankees are attacking this thing now. If Cashman gets the inclination that Arod is out of here, he should jump on Cabrera as soon as possible. If you are convinced Cabrera will mature into a responsible athlete, then I think you break the bank for him in terms of prospects (as much as I would hate to see Joba among them). At 24, Cabrera is the new Arod...a terrific player entering free agency in his prime. The fact that Cabrera does come with baggage should make everyone appreciate Arod all the more.

168 I agree 100%. I just don't like to hear numbers like $30m... it's nuts. However, I don't think the question is IF we should keep ARod. That fact that Cashman is willing to talk now, while Mo and Po scratch their heads, shows Cashmans desires. He can run the numbers as good as any of us, and he knows he has a $30m advantage.

The question is IF ARod wants to stay. That simple. I know he wants to win. I wonder if Cashman will 'share' some of his future plans with ARod, to let him know that we are not rebuilding at the cost of winning.

I said it before. If going to the HOF as a Yankee... if chasing Ruth/Aaron/Bonds as a Yankee... if a plaque or monument in CF... If retiring a Yankee #13... If these things don't have real substance and value to ARod, I don't know why he would stay.

169 The BUC is awful in most terms, but he exists to catch Wakefield. He does that well. I don't know if you heard Flaherty talk about this, but he made a strong case that Mirabelli is particularly well suited to catching a knuckleballer. As the Sox found out last year, not everyone can do that.

I don't blame Epstein for the Rodriguez fiasco; I'm pretty sure that was Lucchino's work. The problem with that deal was that the Sox wanted to go cheap, even if it meant breaking all the rules. They wanted to renegotiate the contract, and unload their albatross contract, and have Texas pick up part of the cost.

When the Yankees wanted Rodriguez, they made an offer Texas couldn't refuse - a talented, young, very cheap replacement. They took the deal seriously and knew what they needed to do to make it. If the Red Sox had been serious, they could have offered a better deal or ponied up a little more money. But they acted all cute and entitled, and I suspect that that was Lucchino's doing.

164 Just let me know when I can expect you'll hold Cashman accountable. One year? two years? Five years? Never? Meanwhile, when's he going to make a move to improve this year's team, like you said he would? Oh right, they have to prove they deserve it!

And if I wanted to make friends with people named "OldYanksFan" and "JL25and3", I'd try a little harder. But I don't need random internet trolls coming to my home for dinner, nor joining me for rides to the Stadium. Just cause I talk to drunks at the bar doesn't mean I want them in my home or car.

Good luck making and finding friends though. Everybody needs them.

165 DeadHorse, where are you?

166 I think Theo and Cash are in the same league and in the same middle of the pack. But Theo has at least shown a willingness to take risks Some have paid off (Beckett and Matsuzaka, Youkilis, letting Damon and Pedro go) and some have not (Rentaria, letting Cabreara and Lowe go). The Belli trade was sheer panic. And free agent signing are always very risky (as we've seen all too well). Lugo and Drew do have time to rebound - over the next three years!

Anyone answer this for me: When was the last time Cashman took a legit risk, besides spending money? And no, Abreu, A-Rod, and Clemens 1.0 don't qualify.

167 Draft picks have nothing to do with arbitration, I think. It's free agency and tiers that determines them.

172 Then again they "make up" for their C's with outstanding 1B, DH, and LF, very good 3B and 2B. The year from Drew is like Abreu. Lugo is like Cano, but so much worse. And Crisp should have been better than Damon at some point. It could be this year.

Meanwhile, the Sox at least have some semblance of a bench with lots of flexibility and redundancy. Meanwhile, Ellsbury and Buchholz are legit.

171 I'm not sure why it matters to me what they pay him. This isn't like when they gave up on Beltran because they paid Johnson. In fact, it's more like the reverse; you're giving the money to a 32-year-old, not a 40-year-old, and there aren't any obvious free agents who can make a huge impact.

Perhaps they're overpaying, but that depends on how you look at it. This is supply and demand - the Yankees need Rodriguez, lots of other teams may want him, and there's no ready supply of alternatives. Besides, overpaying for top quality doesn't bother me - it's overpaying for middling quality, even at a much lower price, that kills you. Look back at the Rangers: people said that Rodriguez's contract was their problem, it was really the contracts they paid to Chan Ho Park and Rusty Greer and so on.

134, 141, 143 Rilkefan is right; the last four years are a sunk gain and irrelevant to any current considerations. I'll use Zack's car as an example. He had to decide whether to put money into fixing this car, or give up on it and look for a replacement. The only considerations are (a) how much it will cost to fix, (b) how much value the car is likely to have to him in the future, and (c) the cost and availability of a suitable replacement. It's entirely irrelevant how good a value the car has been up to this point, except insofar as that suggests its future value.

176 See 149.

177 He's talking about the next three years of the current contract, which are a legitimate consideration. The last four years are not.

178 Thus the Yankees will have gotten A-Rod at or below market prices for the length of his contract. 134 143

179 Ah. You make an assertion. rilkefan challenges it. You respond with by repeating your assertion, and asking him to explain what he means. I give an explanation. You respond by repeating the exact same assertion.

As I said yesterday, you hear, but you don't listen. If you want to have a discussion, discuss.

178 As an immortal once said "Just when you think you have the answer, I change the question!" :)

181 No, you changed the question. The question isn't whether the Yankees should have extended Rodriguez's contract in 2004, given the value they were getting then. The question is whether to extend his contract now, in 2007. What they paid and what they got in 2004-07 is irrelevant, as I've shown in my example.

If there's a flaw in my analysis, address it. Otherwise, if you choose to live in ignorance, at least stop being so snide about how wrong you are.

Anyone else one see Loopy Lupy's latest?

Priceless.

With all that's happened here, Alex would be wise to opt out (with backpage treatment!)

Here's the best part:

"The treatment he has gotten in the media, not just here and not just on the sports pages, but on the front pages when he got caught with that strip-club blond in Toronto. As A-Rod's stats get gaudier, by the way, his sidemen are now blaming his off-field problems on the tabloids for that. Right. The tabs did it! The Post must have fixed him up with the blond on Match.com."

On the one hand he admits the treatment, then he scoffs and snickers at the accusation!

Ah, that Lupy.

http://tinyurl.com/3xtoao

182 My original post 134 was meant to clarify his contract and what the Yanks have "saved". The rest depends on how the Yankees keep their books, treat losses and revenues from year to year, etc.

Otherwise, I have no problem with the analysis here. I just thought 149 said it best.

Again, what the Yankees have saved up to now is irrelevant. That was rilkefan's original comment, and he was entirely correct. This is the first time you've actually addressed that point at all, and you apparently agree. williamnyy23 was addressing a different point, so stop being so condescending when I point out that it's different.

173 From scout.com:

"Getting Compensation: For a departing free agent to earn their former team compensation, they have to leave in one of two manners.

• They have to sign with another team before December 1st, which is known as the 'Arbitration Deadline', the date by which a team must offer its free agents arbitration if they so choose.

• If a team offers its free agent arbitration, they will then receive compensation so long as the free agent signs with another team."

So if it is true that A-Rod's opt out clause nullifies arbitration, the Yankees wil not get compensation if he signs elsewhere.

173 Nice, real nice...

173 If you don't offer a free agent arbitration, you don't get a draft pick for him. The Free Agent just needs to turn down arbitration...

173I think Theo and Cash are in the same league and in the same middle of the pack. But Theo has at least shown a willingness to take risks Some have paid off (Beckett and Matsuzaka, Youkilis, letting Damon and Pedro go) and some have not (Rentaria, letting Cabreara and Lowe go). The Belli trade was sheer panic. And free agent signing are always very risky (as we've seen all too well). Lugo and Drew do have time to rebound - over the next three years!

How is Youkilis a chance? he was from their farm system. Letting Damon go was a chance they took and failed on b/c they wanted Crisp. ALl accounts out there are that the Beckett trade was a Lucchino move. And why do Lugo and Drew have time to rebound more than Cano, Matsui, Damon, Abreu?

But to answer your question: the Abreu trade DOES count, at least as much as the Beckett trade does were it Theo's move, bringing up Cano and Wang (by your use of Youkilis it must be a risk), bringing up all the kids this year, Justice, Knoblauch, AAron Small and Chacon, Matsui, Heck, Damon.

But, simply taking risks is neither here nor there. Taking good risks is worth it, but there isn't really any way to know. I don't want a GM who spends his/her whole tenure making risky moves on the hopes the pan out...

174 Then again they "make up" for their C's with outstanding 1B, DH, and LF, very good 3B and 2B. The year from Drew is like Abreu. Lugo is like Cano, but so much worse. And Crisp should have been better than Damon at some point. It could be this year.

Meanwhile, the Sox at least have some semblance of a bench with lots of flexibility and redundancy. Meanwhile, Ellsbury and Buchholz are legit.

Now thats just hypocrisy. There was no way goign into this season that they Yanks couldn't "make up" for a weak BU1B and BUC, way more than for a STARTING C. Heck, by that logic, the Yanks SS, 3B, C, and LF. But by your own arguments, it doesn't work that way.
And as for Ellsbury and Buchholz, how are they more legit than what we have? You make the same arguments that our player's aren't legit because they haven't proved anything. Ellsbury has a below 800 ops in AAA, hits for ZERO power, doesn't even hit for many doubles. Oh but he steals bases. EH, we have that coming up in Brett Gardner...

Wow, that was a long post, sorry!

173 Wow, I missed that one before. You really are a class act. The other day you called me ignorant - without actually addressing a single issue that I raised. Today you get snide and condescending, without actually addressing a single issue that I raised. Plus you decide to attack me personally, as if I were pleading to be your friend. Sorry, but I'm not. I don't give a rat's ass if you're my friend or my bitterest enemy. I want to discuss baseball; you want to repeat yourself, then insult people.

However, I won't stop demonstrating where and how you're wrong. It's actually fun letting you show everyone how completely bereft of skills in either debating or discussing. Aside from that, go to hell.

bereft of skills you are in debating or discussing, that is. Aside from that, go to hell.

Sooo, anyone else notice Action Jackson's run in A+ and McCallister's start at SI yesterday? Me likey...

Anyone else see this quote from Papelbon too?:
"When I'm out there pitching, it's not Jonathan Papelbon pitching, it's Cinco Ocho pitching. I get a little revved up some times, and Cinco Ocho doesn't know how to control himself when he's out there. "

Cinco Ocho huh? And talking in the 3rd person, huh? I see...

175 Good ol' Rusty Greer. He went to high school in Albertville, Alabama and back during his days with the Rangers he would come back home to help promote some of the local businesses in Albertville.

Well, back in the late 90's I was at the Nissan dealership in Albertville looking to buy a new vehicle and Rusty was there signing autographs and shaking hands with customers. I'm not big on autographs, but there really wasn't much of a crowd around so I thought I would take the opportunity to talk to a major leaguer. He seemed like a pretty nice guy and finally he asked me if I wanted him to sign a couple of his baseball cards he had with him. I said sure and as he was signing I innocently mentioned that I was a big Yankee fan (we had just swept them out of the playoffs). The look he gave me was priceless. It was like I had just punched him in the gut.

187 Penciling Youk in for a starting job was risky. Yanks didn't do that with Cano, or Melky, or even Wang. How is it a risk when you have no other choice (see also Aaron Small and Chacon, Ponson Long, Erickson)?

Youk is like Phillips (last year). But it's the difference between the player (Youk had a clear upside) as well as the manager.

I'll give you Knoblauch as the type of deal I'm looking for. But how can I give Cashman credit when he had just started as GM. Surely he wasn't in control then!? Or else then he's responsible for every move of the last ten years. Maybe Justice too, but then same problem with who pulled the trigger.

Abreu - NO (see how fun that is?). The prospects were nowhere close to MLB (expect for a LH relief pitcher) and the huge amount of cash made Yanks the only destination (see also Roger 1.0 and A-Rod).

And of course, risks for the sake of risks are silly. But you can make them based on the best available evidence at the time. And Cashman just doesn't take any risks. He backs himself into a corner until he has no other options (see CF, 1B, RF, the bench) and then he either uses the mighty checkbook or he glosses over the problem.

BTW: Beckett and Coco were riskier and based on much more solid evidence than any trade Cashman has ever made. Knoblauch would be similar, but those pesky attribution problems.

And BU1B????

Who was the starter? And that's with NO bench. It wasn't just the BUC.

The point isn't what could have been predicted. It is what were the planned the alternative - the insurance if you will. And the Yankee roster was very poorly constructed to get through any worst cases. Unbelievable really when you consider what they went through last year.

190 That's nice. Thanks! And 173 was directed at my friend OYF 164 - just cause he didn't invite me to dinner. Good job with your reading skills though.

(Note to self: JL25and3 doesn't get a X-mas card this year.)

192 Hmm. There've been plenty of ballplayers who've talked about themselves in the third person - not just Reggie and Rickey, but every Joe Blow who's ever said, "I'm just trying to be the best pitcher Joe Blow can be."

But I'm not even sure what this is. Is it Papelbon talking about imself in the third person under another name? I actually prefer to think of it as Papelbon talking about someone else (Cinco Ocho) in the first person.

Who knew he was such a postmodern master at deconstructing literary conventions?

193 Did you see my note the other day on another Bama boy?

David Robertson (22 yo - RHRP) in Tampa:

55.0 IP 27 H 4 ER 17 BB 73 K

195 *And if I wanted to make friends with people named "OldYanksFan" and "JL25and3", I'd try a little harder. But I don't need random internet trolls coming to my home for dinner, nor joining me for rides to the Stadium. Just cause I talk to drunks at the bar doesn't mean I want them in my home or car.

Good luck making and finding friends though. Everybody needs them.*

I only read what you write. And I read it correctly.

And Karstens is pitching in SI right now. Through 2 IP 2 H 0 ER 0 BB 3 K.

198 The reference was to 164 - I was writing to him. The absurdity of calling your handle (thus the quotation marks) my friend, and your obvious bitterness toward me, made it an easy example for him.

194 Did the Sox have an alternative at 1b? And if Youk had fallen on his face (and I suspect his 2nd half #s will be much closer to his career) than its a classic "Cashman" move for you. It seems to be that the difference is purely based on Youk doing very very well so far (which really could not have been predicted). But, I take issue with the notion that Youk was a risk to begin with. He was already a better than average player, so penciling him at 1B wasn't a risk at all. Besides, like I said, its no different than Cano.

As for Abreu, I guess we will agree to disagree. The Sox could easily have traded for him, but didn't. It's not Cash's fault that the Phillies didn't get crap in return, in fact, I would give him MORE credit for that.

How was Beckett and Coco riskier and based on more evidence? Beckett was a proven starter and they were giving up two, at the time, lesser prospects compared to their internal rankings. And in the end, you should be hammering him for those trades by your estimation. Giving up their starting SS, a SP, their future C, and their future 3B for a crappy CF, a two year rental barely above average 3b, and a mixed bag SP (not to mention a quality reliever and a young BUC for a crappy BUC).

And what team IS constructed to go through a worst case? You can't do that with a 25 man roster. The worst case the Yanks went through went far deeper than a bench could cover. Yes, w eknow he should have had a better 1b, but the Sox should have a better BUC or CF, the Braves should have a better BUCF, the Tigers a better BUIF not on drugs etc etc...The Yankees weren't just hit with a few injuries slumping players, they could ahve easily covered that (Hughes, Clemens Phillips etc). Instead, they were hit with multiple pitchers out, multiple positional players out, and a team slump that was NOT predictable. Sure, Cano would not play as well most likely, and Damon probably too. But Damon was covered with Melky etc...

I just don't buy the "you have to cover for the worst case" argument because 1) You can't. if the worst case happens, that sort of implies that you are out of options and the season is tanking, or at the very least, that everything that could go wrong has. There is simply no way to cover for that without a built up farm system, which Cashman is trying to fix. 2) The worst case is as likely to happen as the best case. Take the Tigers/Sox-they could just as easily had everything go wrong, and I coudl guarantee that they would be just as SOL...

For a while last season I floated the idea that the Yankees should take a chance on Daryle Ward. I changed my mind after diving deeply into the stats, and preferred Craig Wilson. Well, as an update:

Wilson was released by the Braves on May 17 after just 10 hits in 58 at bats with one homer. He signed a minor league deal with the White Sox ten days later and is at AAA.

Ward, meanwhile, is featured in the current CubTown post (see sidebar), and has 18 hits in his 58 at bats (no HR, five doubles) this season. Who knows what he'd be hitting for the Yankees with much more playing time.

196 Oh, he's talking about himself. It's the nickname for himself that HE thought up, based on a football player's nickname for himself. You know, his # is 58, so cinco ocho. Its so catchy...He's got nothing on Ricky...

200 Stop with the sophistry. You insulted me in a public post, and it doesn't matter if the post was addressed to someone else. Instead of sneering at my reading skills when I've correctly read an insult, why don't you try owning up to what you wrote? It's not even a very clever way to try to slither away from responsibility for your own words.

Not to mention calling me ignorant.

And through all of it, I've at least given you the courtesy of addressing your baseball points as substantive issues. You've still not responded to a single substantive point that I've raised, now or the other day. Instead you've insulted, sneered, condescended, and acted as if you've proven even a single, small point. I've tried to discuss; you've made it personal.

203Plus he's probably referring to Bengals' Wide Receiver Chad Johnson, who last season requested that reporters refer to him as "Ocho Cinco."

203 I don't think it's quite so simple. When Marshall Mathers talks about Eminem or Slim Shady, is he really talking about himself, or a separate character he's invented, or some combination? Are Papelbon and Cinco Ocho really identical, or is Papelbon talking about himself in the third person, Cinco Ocho in the third person, Cinco Ocho in the first person, or...

201 Actually that's not a classic Cashman move. Name one time he handed a starting position to a rookie?

Like I said, Phillips is the closest and even that didn't work because of the quality of the player (they only took three years until he was 29 yo to give him a shot) and the type of manager. But when Torre's gotten decent prospects, he's usually figured out where to play them, even if it takes a little time.

If Cashman had handed 2B to Cano (risky) and CF to Melky (riskier), he'd get the same props from me.

Instead he signed Womack and Damon.

As for Abreu, you don't think the Phillies tried to get more? They would have if they could. That was the best offer.

Beckett and Coco had clear upside. So did the prospects thay gave away (based on age and level). I'm not here to analyze the moves. Just to point out that Cashman has never made a trade that's even close to that. And Theo got back a catcher in Kottaras for Wells. Better than the Yanks got Unit.

Good teams have good benches. Why? It's insurance. The Yanks might have the worst bench in baseball.

Failing a good bench, you have decent AAAA guys in the minors or prospects not quite ready for primetime. The Yanks had exactly Thompson and Britton there. And 12 starting pitchers.

197 Yeah, I saw that. Thanks for posting the update on another "Bama Yankee"... The way he's going he might get a shot with the big club as early as next year (it's a long shot, especially the way the Yanks usually handle young pitchers but you never know). My guess is that they will save him until 2009.

Jim, I think I have a solution. http://firecashman.blogspot.com is available. You should reserve it, and then post there. Those who disagree with you can come over to your turf and you can feel free to insult them there. I'll agree to try and provide at least semi-coherent arguments and you can feel like an important contributor to Yankees blogdom.

The Bronx Banter is too important to me to watch other contributors vanish because we debate the same topics day after day after day. Go start your own blog, and some of us will visit it and argue with you there. The Banter returns to its regularly scheduled good-nature.

Deal?

209 That blog address will hopefully be obsolete in a few months.

Is insufferableyankeefan.blogspot.com available?

210 How about DeadHorse.blogspot.com ?
;-)

211 I wouldn't want to piss off our friend around here. My X-mas card list is already getting rather short.

194 Do you mean that playing Youkilis was a risk this year or last year?

Karstens had a nice start.

5 IP 4 H 1 ER 0 BB 8 K

207 I completely agree with you on the quality of the bench, and I've been complaining about that for years. Ditto the lack of any plan B behind the plate - y'know, just in case of some bizarre circumstance in which a 35-year-old workhorse of a catcher should start declining within the next few years. That never happens.

But I honestly don't know who makes the decisions as to who makes the team, who plays and at what position. I don't think the Womack signing necessarily obligated Torre to make him the starting second baseman.

I'm not sure why you say that Torre's found ways to work rookies into the lineup. Derek Jeter had already been anointed before Joe got there. The only other time I can find that he gave a starting job to a rookie out of spring training was with Alfonso Soriano. What other rookies has he found time for? Shane Spencer, Ricky Ledee, Nick Johnson?

Also, remember that Cano wasn't all that highly regarded as a prospect. The Diamondbacks passed on him (and Wang) in the RJ deal. Before a moderately hot start in 2005 - after which he was called up - his minor league stats were nothing to write about. He's actually hit better in the majors than he ever did in the minors.

I can also see Torre leaning towards Womack on the basis of warriortude and he's-been-there-ness. He was coming off a legitimately decent year - true, after a lousy career - and had been in two World Series, with different teams, in four years. Is that "knowing how to win" or what?

I'm willing to say that signing Womack was Cashman's fault. But I honestly don't know if the responsibility of playing him rather than Cano was Cashman's or Torre's. Frankly, if Torre had wanted to give Cano the starting job, I have trouble believing that Cashman would have ordered him to play Womack instead.

173 Cashman took risks signing Jon Leiber and that worked out well. He took a risk signing Dotel and that didn't work.

Of course it also depends on what you mean as "legit risk" as well.

I'm surprised no one's brought it up:

Rickey's the new Mets hitting coach.

My thought is wow. I know they want Reyes to be just like him, but the hitting coach? Would anyone confuse Rickey for a great hitter? Does he know how to mentor people and find flaws?

And his best skill (besides SB), OBP - can that be taught?

Seriously - if you don't want to piss me off, try having a civil discussion. Lose the attitude, and I'm really a pretty nice guy. My so-called bitterness towards you is hardly arbitrary. I've disagreed with plenty of people here, but somehow we've always managed to keep things on an amicable, collegial basis. You insult me, I get insulted.

216 No, those are good. I forgot about Lieber. I think I'd argue thought that the whole sign while rehabbing from TJ was a Cashman innovation (not sure though). But it makes good use of the Yankee checkbook so the risk isn't that high.

I'm just looking for a trade where he's given up talent for talent. That's what they've needed to do with all this pitching since at least November and with CF and 1B for years. Knoblauch is a good example too.

217 Wow, I missed that entirely. Does that mean he's retired, or is this just an interim job while he waits for the phone call?

As for his qualifications: first, great hitters don't necessarily make good hitting coaches, and good hitting coaches most decidedly don't have to be great hitters. Charley Lau was a super-guru as a hitting coach, and Mickey Hatcher is very highly regarded now. Hell, Alex Rodriguez thinks Kevin Long is the best hitting coach he's ever had. On the other hand, Rod Carew wasn't a great success as a coach.

Rickey was a pretty damn good hitter, even before the walks - and maybe he can teach a few things about pitch selection. He was also a tremendous student of pitchers, which helped him steal all those bases. I have no idea if he's a good coach or not, but I certainly wouldn't say he wasn't a good enough hitter to be a coach.

THANK YOU JEBUS, we play today!

I'm starting to get high from the glue we've pounded those puir horses into ...

anywho, everyone should head on over to RLYW and check out SG's mid-season defensive report ...

leading the charge?

robinson cano

http://www.replacementlevel.com/index.php/RLYW/comments/2007_yankee_defense_at_the_all_star_break

also, if anyone cares, baseball prospectus is in the middle of their free week, lots of good reading and more sortable stats than you could ever want

and now i'm away until a pitch is thrown, before the glue fumes start me talking to my shoe ...

oops, i prevaricated slightly, one of today's articles over at BP concerns analysis of the situation and success rates of bunting for hits ... leading the discussion is willy taveras, who's very much in line to break the current record (post 1959) for most bunt hits in a season

one little item of yankees note ... by the admitted slightly incomplete methodology of the measuring (there's no way to capture intent, some bunt hits are really sacrifices in intent), derek jeter ranks second on the current player success per attempt list, with 37 bunt hits in 56 bunt hit attempts

222 I'd be curious to see year-by-year breakdowns on Jeter. It seems like he's been bunting a lot more the last few years. Of course, I don't know at all how many are attempted sacs, how many are attempted hits, and how many may be one or the other.

Anyone catch this on BP's UTK:

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=6445

"Philip Hughes threw a couple of innings in Single-A Tampa on Monday without any problems, putting him on schedule for a slightly longer outing at Double-A on Friday. Hughes is coming back from both the hamstring strain he suffered against the Rangers in his near no-hitter, and from a severe ankle sprain suffered in rehab. He showed no problem with either injury on Monday, and appeared to have his normal motion and stuff according to several reports and obsevers. Hughes should have no more than two outings (including the Friday one in Trenton) before being ready. The biggest question is his stamina, but the Yankees will be watching him closely, and figure to shadow him in his first start due to pitch limits. Another Yankee on the comeback trail is Jeff Karstens; he went three innings for the Staten Island Yankees, showing no lingering effects from his broken leg suffered back in late April. He's building up stamina, though he's expected to wind up in the Yankees bullpen rather than the rotation."

I'd been seeing 5 rehab starts for King Phil, whereas Will Carrol here says only 3 total. Would be nice to see him back really soon, but I'm sure they'll do what's right for Phil. Other articles have Cash refusing to give a timetable, so maybe they're going to just see how it goes. Also from the same UTK is this tidbit:

"If you're having deja vu, Boston fans, I understand. At about this time last year, we were having discussions about whether Manny Ramirez could make it through the season due to knee problems. Ramirez actually did make it through 2006 despite tendonitis and a meniscal tear, so there's more than just hope that David Ortiz can do likewise. Ortiz had an MRI, and unless there's a tear well beyond what they expect to find, he'll be given a couple of weeks to see if he can make it through with treatment and maintenance. He'll have time to get back even if he waits; a simple mensicectomy has a four-week schedule for recovery, even for someone that stresses his knees like Ortiz does. If he does have the surgery, there's a collateral positive—Ramirez would be able to shift to DH occasionally, helping his still-problematic knees. Overall, the ten-game lead gives them plenty of leeway to make the right decision, and not just the expedient one."

This really does have the makings of an historic collapse for the Sox - Can you imagine what that team would be like if Schilling doesn't return, Ortiz is gone for a good while, AND Youk & Lowell & Varitek regress in the second half (like they did last year...). OKOK, i wouldn't bet on it, but i would expect the worm to turn some.

224 Won't happen b/c Theo has planned for the worst case scenario, so even if all of that happened, it would be ok b/c they are prepare ;)

225 Well played.

224 Even if Ortiz sits out a month, and Youk (who's already regressed, check out his monthly splits), Lowell & Tek all regress too, Manny, Drew, and Lugo are all underperforming, so it could balance out.

I think it would be amusing if Papi decides to have the surgery, and within 2-3 weeks, the Yanks close the gap to 4 games. Would the Sox rush Papi back early? Would Papi rush himself back? Would it cause the Sox to make some kind of desperation move, especially if Schilling remains out?

The next couple of weeks could be fun, but only if the Yanks dominate the teams they play.

Will Carrol sez:

"Reports out of Milwaukee have Doug Melvin given a green light to make deals, even ones that take on significant salary."

Not sure what the Yankees can offer that the Brewers need, though; the Yankees' most tradable players are Farnsworth and Damon, and neither provide upgrades over Derrick Turnbow and Bill Hall. Would they send a package of position players for Bobby Abreu?

228 Or, and how's this for wild idea... would the Brewers trade some position prospects for half a season of Andy Pettitte? If the Yankees don't improve in the standings by the end of July, I think its worth a shot. Tony Gwynn Jr would be nice...

I was finally able to pull of a trade for Hughes in my fantasy league. Only cost me Jim Thome. Its not really as big a loss as it might seem, as Thome has been "eh" all season in a bad offense and can only play DH, plus I don't really have a spot for him...

But either way, all I really wanted was to ge Hughes, so its all good..

229 Tony Gywnn Jr, the guy with the minor league career OPS of 694? Who's hit 8 home runs in his career (none in the bigs) in 1800 ABs? You're kidding, right?

AFAIC, the Brewers have no one of significance to give the Yanks, except maybe some young pitching, which the Yanks don't need.

Unless Melvin loses his mind and wants to trade Cecil Fielder or Corey Hart, in which case, I'm all for it. =)

On the Knoblauch trade in retrospect:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_kmtpp/is_200504/ai_n14765886

It's the gift that keeps on giving.

Seven years later, the Twins continue to reap the benefits of the Chuck Knoblauch trade. Three key players on this year's team are direct descendants of that Feb. 6, 1998, transaction.

Starting shortstop Jason Bartlett was acquired from the San Diego Padres for outfielder Brian Buchanan, who came to the Twins in the Knoblauch trade.

Carlos Silva is an important member of the rotation, and Nick Punto is the top utility man. Both were acquired from the Phillies for Eric Milton, who came to the Twins in the Knoblauch trade.

It's as if the Twins have gotten two generations of ballplayers for Knoblauch, who is long since out of baseball. The original deal was Knoblauch to the Yankees for Milton, Buchanan, Cristian Guzman, Danny Mota and $3 million.

231 I don't want Cecil back. He is old and washed up. But I hear his kid is pretty good... ;)

231 I don't think Cecil Fielder will be much use to the Yankees at this point...

But yeah I guess I could have done a teeny bit more research. I doubt the Brewers would give up anyone in their starting lineup for a pitcher, and now that Ryan Braun is getting his shot with the big club, it doesn't leave much in the minors. The time to trade with the Brewers was a couple years ago, when they were unwilling to take on salary...

232 Meh. Little Nicky Punto* is now their regular thirdbaseman, and here are his numbers with the Twins by year:

.253/.340/.319
.239/.301/.335
.290/.352/.373
.211/.313/.272

That's basically Miggy Mantle (though Punto usually steals 15-20 bases/year too).

And Silva is no great shakes either, though he was did walk just 9 guys in over 200 innings in 2005.

Given how Milton never really developed, I think it was still a phenomenal deal for the Yanks.

*Bat-girl, we miss you. Hope Baby Dash continues to do well.

233 234 D'oh! That was a pretty huge blunder on my part. My bad.

232 Is that supposed to be a critique of the trade? Knobby helped the Yanks with 3 WS, they can have Punto, bartlett and Silva, I'll take the WS.

229 Glad you're not the GM.

Tony Gwynn Jr (24 yo OF):
mL Career to 2006: .271 .351 .343 - 1726 AB
2007: .258 .315 .288 - 66 AB

MLB Career to date: .280 .318 .327 - 168 AB

228 It's a good idea. I think Farns and Abreu are about it. Pettitte, I think the Yanks would want to keep for next year - he's better than Moose.

Here are some names with a quick look at their farm:

Vinny Rottino - 27 - C - AAA - .800 OPS last two years
Lou Palmisano - 25 - C - AA - .295 .400 .464 in 224 AB this year
Mat Gamel - 22 - 3B - A+ - .800 OPS in A- last year and A+ this year. With Braun emerging and Prince at 1B, he might be had.
Angel Salome - 21 - C - A+ - .775 OPS at A- last year and A+ this year. From NYC.
Chris Errecart - 22 - 1B - A+ - Solid Rookie league debut last year with .900 OPS; .780 OPS this year

I have no idea about the prospect hype of any of these guys. I think Gamel is rated highly (--checking-- yup #10 in their organization by BA).

237 Me too. That was a great trade. More like that one please.

And if anything, those additional deals show how good Terry Ryan is, me thinks and not how bad the original deal was for the Yanks.

Summarized from Soxaholic:

Looking ahead to the 2nd half, the Sox have 56 of the remaining 75 games against under .500 teams. 10 against the O's and 15 against the D-rays.

Yanks still have 8 against the Tigers while Sox are done with them.

BTW: Take a look at how the Brewers are constructed though.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/MIL/2007.shtml

Very solid lineup.
Very solid bench.
Very solid bullpen.
But the rotation is just average.

It's Sheets and then lots of barely average starters.

Still, it's a bizarro world when the Brewers are better constructed top to bottom than the Yankees.

Yeah, Pettitte could bring a nice bounty but he didn't want to go to another NL Central team. Maybe they'd take a chance on Abreu. Maybe they'd take a Karstens or Rasner or even DeSalvo. Otherwise they don't need much.

Wow, it would be fun to cheer them on. They might be my NL team this year.

241 they're mine, my mother's family is from wisconsin, my grandmother was a big brewers fan, i remember going to old county stadium in the brew crew days ...

plus it's nice to see them doing well in the post-seligula era

241 also, if they're sticking yovanni gallardo in the bully behind the starters they've got now, they're not likely to see any of the prospects we might offer them as any help ...