Baseball Toaster was unplugged on February 4, 2009.
Tony Pena interviewed with the Yankees yesterday; a decision is expected tomorrow. I expect they'll hire Mattingly. Hank Stienbrenner spoke to reporters yesterday. Joel Sherman thinks maybe it's time for Hank to stop talking publicly.
If the baseball ownership thing doesn't work out, Priceline.com might be interested. Maybe even a guest-appearance on "Boston Legal."
speaking of rocky and 1996 comparisons, i hope the rockies are just continuing along the 1996 yankee trajectory. like the yankees, the rockies were just crushed in game 1 by a team that had come back down 3-1 in the lcs and outscored its opponent by huge margins in so doing. if the sox win again tonight, look for the rockies to win 4 straight.
I agree with this completely. I saw the comment about how "this is not the 1996 team" as a clear shot at Torre. Very immature.
I'm excited about next year, but I think the team could just as easily miss the playoffs as it could make a run at the WS. 3 rookie starters and a painfully thin Joba-free bullpen makes me very nervous personally.
Randy Levine was Deep Throat.
The Yankees held the lukewarm attitude that Joe should be back next year. They expressed how lukewarm they were by refusing to negotiate at all. Joe was hurt by this outright refusal to negotiate and made an emotional spur-of-the-moment decision (I wonder if the Yankees gave him a deadline?).
The stuff that Joe said about years and incentives were ex post facto rationalizations. Joe refuses to say that he will come back to the stadium for events not only because he is mad at the Yankees, but also mad at himself for so quickly turning down the chance to manage for one more season (which he really wanted).
12 Fair enough. But also why is it necessary to make the FO out to be jerks? From the very beginning this pretty much has been a white hat v. black hat discussion.
9 Either way, he'd have been mamanging 2008 without another year. The extra year would have only been a comfort this season, not next.
11 Yep..that's pretty much how I view it too. I've said it before, but Joe cut off his nose to spite his face.
12 Not at all...I just think it's worth point out that Torre isn't the martyr that he was made out to be (and which a few posters here want him to be). Torre holds at least as much responsibility for his not being the 2008 manager as anyone else, and that's the point I am trying to make.
13 Class is a two way street. Joe and his supporters can have their version of events, but don't blame the facts for getting in the way.
14 Dynasty? Nah...we all know Boston is just lucky to make it to the World Series. It's all a crapshoot.
Is it last week again already?
Will someone PLEASE hurry up and leak who the new manager is, so this zombiefied dead horse aka "Joe Torre - insulted or not?" will finally, mercifully die?
And aside from LaRussa,
"Terry Francona, who has the highest winning percentage of any Red Sox manager since 1950 (375-273, .579) and is the first manager to take the team to the postseason three times, will be given a contract extension after the season, club sources confirmed yesterday.
Francona, whose contract was due to expire after the 2008 season, is expected to have at least two more years tacked on."
It seems that lots of managers like having that second year.
In fact, and I'm just guessing here, if the Yankees had called back Friday morning and offered him say $5.25 million, I bet that he would have taken it.
Also, I disagree with those who condemn some commentators for beating a dead horse. The Chass column and the Heyman column do have new news about the events that transpired. That fact differentiates this conversation from last week's.
One thing, as much as you may disagree with each other here (and you are both entitled to your opinions, of course), please refrain from hurling insults at each other. That hasn't happened yet, but I don't want this to get to point-of-no-return for either of you.
I know these discussions can get heated, but let's not get knuts...
Please. Think of the children. Let's just agree to disagree.
27 And I'm sure they'd like a 3rd and 4th year too. Also, it's proably worth noting that Torre's 1 year, without incentives, is probably worth as much as most other manager's two years. If Torre could manage 2007 without a safety net, he could have handled 2008 as well, especially if he is as beloved in the clubhouse as it seems. Do you really think a Jeter-led clubhouse is going to mutiny on Torre because he doesn't have a long-term contract?
28 I guess you can't tear yourself away. I am flattered. Thanks for reading.
30 Hmmm...how about Tom Verducci? Then, maybe I can play him.
just because YOU would have reacted the same way doesn't mean that any one of us would have. i for one would have taken anything i could get to manage the yankees. and if i were joe torre i would have taken such a nice and reasonable offer, even if for less money and years than i wanted, if it meant i could continue with the job i profess to love so much.
and the one or two year thing is a little crazy. so would he have quit after 1 year so that there wasn't a question of whether the 2nd year was his last? should he have quit before this year? it doesn't make sense.
I believe Cashmoney is still in charge, and I don't think he'd do willing do that.
i think melky ipk and wang is too much for santana. but i do think now might be a good time to trade melky. his trade value is probably as high as it will ever be. i go back and forth with him. he has that great arm and he seems to make contact a lot. but i don't see him ever developing much more power, and i'm not sure if he makes enough contact to be a .300 hitter. maybe i'm wrong, but i think he's a little overrated right now.
My guess is no on both counts.
And, yesterday, I said that I would not make that Twins deal, but today I'm re-thinking that given Nate Silver's analysis in Baseball Prospectus. He claims that power pitching is one of the three vital factors for post-season success. In that case, maybe the difference between Santana and Wang in the post-season would make it ok.
maybe the difference between wang and santana. but the difference between wang/kennedy and santana?
One possibility is that they sign Andruw Jones to a one-year contract, hope that he improves, and hope that Austin Jackson can take over in 2009.
There are a lot of suppositions there, but I have heard that Boras does not want to lock Jones into a long-term contract given what a disappointing season that he had.
It still amazes me that 2008 will only be Jones' age 31 season. He's not that aging.
I would rank the CF as follows
1. Jones with a short deal
2. Hunter with a long deal
3. Jones with a long deal
4. Rowand with a long deal
I would really miss Melky though.
People projected Kennedy as a MLB third or fourth starter at best coming into 2007. But his K rate went up this year in the minors and it looks like he has his "stuff" back (he lost it a bit in his last year at USC). Under Sickels' grading system, he's probably an A- now.
47 No, it's not crazy to discuss it for a week, except that for the last few days we've been doing nothing but repeating ourselves. Everybody ends up pissed off, which might be OK if there were any substance left. But there isn't.
"I would consider DHing for the Yankees. Unfortunately, the Yankees have two DHs, so that dream would never happen," Bonds said.
Dream? Hmmm? Barry is wrong about one thing, however. The Yankees have 3-4 DHs, so what's one more. If Arod opts out, Bonds would be one way to replace some of that lost offense. Heck, even if he stays, Arod/Bonds would rival Ortiz/Manny. At what point do you put principle aside?
I'm not concerned at all about whether it hurts the team's image, just about whether it helps the team.
I'm still not entirely sold on Melky. He's fun to watch and his defense is good, but he's still below average offensively. Nor was there really much improvement from last year to this, even if you discount his slow start somewhat. His walk rate actually declined quite a bit, which doesn't fill me with confidence.
I make the deal in a heartbeat.
Except to say that 68 , I didn't see anything in those articles - especially the Chass article - that we haven't been saying here for a few days.
And no, I don't consider one way of building a championship team to be morally superior to another.
That's true of the Yankees in the 20s and certainly true of the Steinbrenner years, but I would not say that's true concerning the team from the 30s through 60s. Remember, of course, that the reserve clause was in place. The Yankees had a great minor league system that cost money, but, then again, so did the Cardinals and the Dodgers. The Yankees in this era were just brilliantly run. The dominance would have carried through the late 60s if the team's racism had not finally, and justly, caught up to them.
Second, your reference to an NYC advantage is an anachronism in this context. NYC is an advantage now largely because of the value of cable rights (something that didn't exist from the 30s until the 60s).
Third, a NYC attendance advantage did exist somewhat, but remember that the Yankees at this time were competing with two other NYC teams not just one. The Yankees led the league in attendance consistently, but it was not constant and the margin was not overwhelming (winning will do that for a team).
Fourth, your last sentence contradicts itself -- what advantage would there be to the Yankees "spending more" if they were "nickel and diming" their talent?
Any "financial advantage" that the Yankees had in signing talent was built upon the fact that World Series bonus money seemed like a given. But that type of financial advantage resulted from the Yankees' intelligent management.
NYC media advantage, believe it or not, existed before the advent of cable television, but, in this case, the financial advantage NYC from both an attendance and advertising standpoint was in existance even during the Depression.
The Yankees were outdrawing those two other teams by significant margins, which was the at least one of the main reasons why the Giants kicked them out of the Polo Grounds.
Salaries were nickle and dimed. Money spent on scouting and player development was unequaled in baseball.
While the success and reputation of the team's success was certainly a major factor in attracting young talent, it still took a great deal of money to support the scouts, teams, ball parks, etc. necessary to develop that talent.
The stuff that is coming out doesn't suddenly shift the axis of good and evil...it just adds nuance. It also doesn't change the questionable nature of management's statements to the press or the way they chose to manage the process. But it seems this sort of nuance is beyond the people who want to en-noble management and vilify Torre.
People always want to kick the guy going out the door. In this case, we seem to have people who were so anxious to see this happen, that they're kicking with so much enthusiasm it's amazing their legs don't go flying out of their sockets.
If the Yanks could land Santana AND keep Hughes and Joba, you HAVE to make that trade. You are talking about a big three for the ages going forward. Throw in Pettitte/Moose for another year and you have to believe that the rotation could carry the Yankees pretty far...
Look, with a big three like that, your job is much easier. Its a lot lot lot lot easier to find #4 and #5 starters than it is to find a #1. The Yankees could come out of that trade with 3(!!!) #1s on their roster next season, all for the price of a good but not great pitcher, a kid who likely won't be nearly as good as his season was this year, and a young CF prospect who declined offensively and has shown little power or discipline...
The team that should really make the trade is the D-Rays. They won't, but they could and that would give them a really good rotation...
"The stuff that is coming out doesn't suddenly shift the axis of good and evil...it just adds nuance."
i believe that that is what monkeypants is saying. there were all these nuances, it wasn't just a black and white issue. those of us who are criticizing torre are not necessarily in love with the front office. but we think that in this circumstance the front office was well within its discretion to decide to offer joe something less than what he wanted but more than not offering anything at all. it seems to me that it's the people who are criticizing the front office who don't see the nuances and just want to vilify.
"after dangling for a week..."
I reject this phrasing as distortion. The only people "dangling" were the media who demanded an instant story and, when denied this, created their own.
you'll see that the Yankees were consistently high in attendance, but that they often weren't number one. In the mid-late 50s, for example, their attendance numbers were blown away by the Milwaukee Braves!
Also, I've never seen any evidence that the Yankees blew away the competition in terms of financing their minor league teams.
One piece of evidence that would support the claim that the old Yankees bought pennants would be a lot of "bonus babies" like Kirby Higbe on the roster. The Yankees never had a lot of those either.
Well, they had a financial advantage it was slight and even that was overcome by the cheapness of the Yankee ownership group. The Yankees never really outspent someone like Tom Yawkey.
I know they're cheap and starved for money, so it'll never happen. But if they had enough vision to pull it off, it could change their franchise.
Just because you don't like the way the media is hungry for a story doesn't mean that management shouldn't be sensitive to how a long-time manager and media icon is treated before he is made a final offer. In other words, Torre should have been given some consideration, whether they decided to make an offer nor not, and not left to hang for a week. That's "dangling", plain and simple, not a media construct in your meta-narrative.
How ironic that some were pleading for people to allow management to take their time in deliberating and making the right decision, mocking the idea of any sense of urgency..meanwhile, management this week now seems to be speeding through the process of hiring a new manager and demonstrating the proper sense of urgency. More than a few contradictions and distortions in the way this has all played out.
Moreover, I have not read anything where Torre complaind about "dangling" (he may have--I don't know). Rather, the "dangling" reflects your own projections.
Comment status: comments have been closed. Baseball Toaster is now out of business.