I was actually equally concerned about Burnett’s injury history and lack of control. Having watched him this year, I would say my updated concerns would mostly be lack of control. He has now stayed healthy for a while, and while the “Carl Pavano syndrome” may strike anytime, I think he now deserves to be given a bit of slack on his injury record a bit.

His control, on the other hand, could use some improvement.

I thought the biggest reason people were against the AJ signing was b/c they assumed that meant no Tex.  If Tex had already signed w/ Boston, for example, I think most would have been on board with AJ

When I saw the Yankees sign Burnett, I immediately thought that Cashman was going for the high K/9 guys to offset what he assumed would be a well below average defense. I think he deserves a lot of credit for choosing that type of pitcher, rather than just people saying it year 1 worked out, so we’ll take it. (Not saying that anyone has said/is saying that here, but they’re out there.)

[2] I recall some people going to great lengths to prove that you couldn’t make that jump. Burnett’s total contract value was ~ $100M less than what Teixiera was expected to get, and while the AAV would certainly have helped to pay for Teixiera, that total contract value difference was more important. My paraphrasing may be butchering.. perhaps someone with better powers of recollection can chime in.

I had three issues with the Burnett deal:

1) I assumed it meant no Tex
2) The length of the deal, considering Burnett’s age and injury history
3) The fact that Burnett is considerably less awesome that his “stuff” seems to make (some) people believe.  I know he’s a good pitcher, but people go ga-ga over his ability to dominate and forget the inevitable implosions that come with it.  Lost amid the gushing over his 2008 season was his very pedestrial ERA.

#1 was incorrect.  #2, jury is out, but 2009 was a success.  #3 I stand by.

However, given the decline and fall of Chien-Ming Wang, having Burnett was an absolute necessity.  So yeah, I’m happy they signed him.

Pedestrian, damnit.  Sigh.

[5] I agree with pretty much everything there.  Just to expand on #3, I wasn’t against *getting* Burnett for those reasons, but I was worried about the contract $$‘s because of it.  I didn’t have any problems getting Burnett b/c I figured the results would be similar to what they were.  I was concerned he would be paid like “good AJ”, as if “bad AJ” didn’t exist.

I’m not sure what he got paid like, but 3.5 WAR is about equal to $16.5M, so for year 1 anyway it looks like he was paid fairly.  Going forward though it is still a concern if the value of a win will rise faster than AJ declines.

The good news is, AJ’s “stuff” is still good enough that with a bit of luck he could put together a Cy Young season…

I’d like to clarify I expected the results on a rate-basis but felt he would be injured at some point and only have around 150IP.

Here’s my big issue with AJ this year.
1.  His control was atrocious.
2.  He was murdered by righties this year.  This seems odd since he’s a righty who throws a deadly breaking ball for his out pitch.  Does anyone have an explanation for this?  It’s not in line with his career norms which have a fairly neutral platoon split.

[9] Something tells me this might be the chicken or the egg. Where AJ’s bad starts a result of facing (good) righties, or a function of the dice roll that happens before he takes the mound, and in those games, there just happen to be some good RH batters?

AJ’s GB% was 42.8%, the lowest of his career (although it was the same way back in 2002), and well below his career average (49.5 %). His FB% was the highest of his career (39.2% in 2009 v. a career average of 32.0%). I don’t see why there wouldn’t be a normalization in 2010.

[10]  It is a small sample so its hard to be sure, but AJ did face more lefty hitters than right hitters as hard as that is to conceive.

According to Feinsand, the RS are going hard after Halladay.

Regarding these free agent signings: Matsui, Damon,Burnett, Tex and CC- even regardless of how the remaining contract years go, in the wake of a championship, don’t we really now have to view them all as successes? In a 5 to even 10 year span to win one world championship is pretty darn good. Our team has 2 within 10 and four pennants to hang as well.

According to reports Sox going hard for Halliday. Don’t know about the rest of you but I feel mixed about this.  Halliday will likely be a great to good starter for three years but innings and age could yield serious injury within near future.  He is prone to go for complete games afterall.  I’m old enough to remember guys like Hunter, Gibson and Palmer who would complete 20 or more games annually, so 9-10 might not be that big a deal.  Even so, not sure Yanks should break the youth bank competing for his services. At the very least though they should up the ante to make sure Boston coughs up something big.

[13]-  Does adding Halladay count as adding 2 aces to their stable of 12?

[13 & 14] Yeah, I’m of two minds on that as well.  On the one hand, Hallady in Boston gives them the top pitching staff - no Gammons-hyperbole this time - in the AL.  So it makes a tough team even tougher.  On the other hand, they’re going to give up several good players to get him, which affects their depth if injuries occur, may limit what they have to trade for other pieces later, and could set them back a few years down the road.  Especially if Halladay decides not to sign right away (though you’d think the Sox would insist on an extension as part of the deal), or breaks down (as pitchers his age would do).  And of course, if it takes them time to get Halladay that may allow the Yankees some freedom to complete other deals, like for Holliday, w/o serious competition.

So then of course I have the same concerns about the Yankees entering the bidding.  There are all the same upsides and downsides (Yankees would hands-down have the best rotation in baseball) for the Yankees.  Borden at Lohud suggesed it would be acceptable to trade Chamberlain/Jackson for Halladay.  I’m always loathe to part with young, high-end prospects.  At the same time as that, Chamberlain is going to start getting expensive soon, and Jackson may not be much better than Gardbrera until Heathcott is ready anyway.  What do you think, would Chamberlain+Jackson+some B prospects be enough?  Are we willing to part with that (assuming extension is signed before-hand)?

[16] The first hurdle to any trade for Halladay would be whether or not Cash would be willing to go against his “prospects or contract but not both” philosophy. Assuming for the sake of argument that he would (and that Hal would be willing to consent to Halladay’s financial demands), I would only consider trading “Chamberlain+Jackson+some B prospects” if they believe that Joba is unlikely to regain the form that he showed as a starer pre-shoulder injury in 2008.

If the Yankees somehow add Halladay, their chances of going on another championship run over the next few years goes up dramatically.

btw, Halladay’s NTC clause may empower him to choose his destination as well as possibly lower the price for his team of choice.

seems to me that the control issue is caused by AJs inability to consistently repeat his delivery. seems like someone should be able to help him fix that. Although, you’d have to wonder why nobody has successfully done it to date.

Olney:

A longtime executive pegs the Jays’ chances of dealing Halladay at no better than 50-50, because of the possible reluctance of teams to give up enough to satisfy the club leadership.

Way to go out on a limb.

[18] One possible side benefit of a Halladay trade is that he seems to be an effective surrogate pitching coach for AJ.

It’ll be pretty scary if Boston gets Halladay, but then again, I’m sure it was pretty scary for them when we got CC, Tex, and AJ last year.  All just part of living in the AL East.

[14] I’m inclined to think that the Yankees are involved in the Halladay rumors mainly to bid up the price for Boston… there was that article that someone linked to recently, I believe, that indicated the Yanks were willing to trade either Joba or Hughes for Halladay… that 1) doesn’t seem like Cash’s style to leak such info if he legitimately wanted to make this trade, and 2) isn’t in keeping with the team’s recent approach to Santana (don’t pay twice in the form of big prospects and big money).

Personally, if the Yankees are serious about trading for Halladay, then my only hope is that they make Montero untouchable… anyone else can go, but Montero is going to have so much value, particularly if he can play C even part-time, that I don’t think he’d be worth parting with.

caused by AJs inability to consistently repeat his delivery

His delivery looks pretty consistent to me, I think its more that he has such a whirlybird motion that limits his consistency.  Unfortunately that motion is also what makes his fastball so devastating.

[17] I think part of the, “prospects or contract but not both” philosophy is scale.  He was willing to part with prospects to get Johan, just not as many/as high of quality as Minn was asking for.  I think Joba+Jackson+B-prospect is less than what Minn wanted (though we don’t know for sure).

And the problem isn’t just if Joba regains the form.  It’s what they think the difference will be between Joba and Doc in the next 3-4 years, and how much that is worth over what Joba can do in the 5-8 beyond that.  If Joba was a 4 WAR pitcher next year we’d be very, VERY happy.  Doc is more likely to be a 6 WAR player, plus there’s still some concern about Joba wearing down near the end of the year (after he exceeds his IP high).  Realistically, if Joba progresses at a rate that would make us happy and Doc doesn’t have any serious injury, I think 2012 is when they would be equal in performance.

I have a feeling that Halladay would be willing to waive his NTC for either Boston or NYY.  I’d certainly like nothing more than for him to tell Toronto he only wants to go to NYY.

@22. so his consistent delivery limits his consistency? I remember seeing an analysis once that showed his forearm position and release point varying dramatically on his curve. And i think it’s his inability to consistently throw his curve for strikes that really kills him consistently.

This comment brought to you by the National Institute for Joe Morgan.

[23] Has Cashman said that? Maybe I’m wrong, but I thought his public position has been that he never made an offer for Johan (although Hank may have made one).

In 2008, Joba’s ERA as a starter was 2.76 and his BAA was .245. That’s Halladay-like (his 2009 stats are virtually identical: 2.79/.256). If Joba could pitch at that level over the course of a season, he would likely approach Halladay in WAR. That’s why I think the issue is whether or not can Joba return to being that kind of starter, although his ability to maintain for a full season is also an issue, as you correctly point out.

Yes!

so his consistent delivery limits his consistency?

Thats exactly what I’m saying.  I would hazard that his side to side motion makes it easier to pull-off the ball while maintaining the same delivery, which is what I was getting at up above.

By my count he throws his fastball for strikes about 57% of the time and his curve for strikes about 54% of the time.
Seems to me like he controls his curve better than his fastball given the greater inherent difficulty in controlling breaking balls.

i don’t know that &#xst;rikes is the right KPI to measure control in this context. There could be times when he’s intentionally out of the zone. that said i’d expect that more with the curve than the FB so your point is well taken. I guess I can sum this all up by saying, who knows?

Ehhh, if the Red Sox get Halladay, so be it. Maybe it is still the afterglow of the WS win speaking, but I am going to bet that it will cost Red Sox substantially in terms of prospects, and it will also go against their stated principle of “no more than a 4 year contract” for a pitcher. Both of which may make for a weaker club down the line for them.

By my count he throws his fastball for strikes about 57% of the time and his curve for strikes about 54% of the time.

How are you counting these? Does this data exist by pitch type? From the pitch f/x data here, I am getting that his fastballs are thrown for strikes 63.3 percent of the times, and his curveballs are thrown for a strike 42 percent of the time, although I have to admit the numbers don’t make too much sense to me, because the total number of pitches don’t match up well with fangraphs.

[29]
Thats what I used.  I counted fouls as strikes.

Has Cashman said that? Maybe I’m wrong, but I thought his public position has been that he never made an offer for Johan (although Hank may have made one).

As I mentioned, we’ll never know for sure what happened.  We’re *pretty* sure at one point the Yankees indicated they were willing to part with Hughes in the deal, but balked when Smith wanted Hughes *and* IPK (in addition to the other pieces).

Regardless, I think if the Jays asked for Jackson and nothing else Cashman would obviously do it.  Saying, “prospects or cash but not both” is catchy, but it is clearly more complex than that.  I don’t know what Cashman considers too much.

Ehhh, if the Red Sox get Halladay, so be it.

Yeah, I’m not advocating Yankees get Halladay to keep him from the Sox.  I think the Yanks should pursue Doc, I’m curious what we think would be a “fair” trade from the Yankees’s perspective?  If the Sox offer more than Yanks should give, that’s fine.  But I don’t want the Sox to give up Buccholz+B-prospect when we’d be willing to do Joba+Jackson.

[18] Sort of a catch-all, no? If it were that easy, every pitcher would be awesome. Burnett is entering his age 33 season. Pitch selection and maybe some better break based on grip changes are all you can hope for.

I don’t want to trade for Halladay at all, but if we do, I’d rather trade Montero for Halladay than Joba or Hughes.  Getting Halladay is going all in for the next 3 years.  Joba and Hughes will be much more productive over the next 3 years, even if Montero ends up being better.  Given his age, Montero is unlikely to be a productive major leaguer before mid-season 2011, and then he’ll probably have an adjustment phase.

Also, we have another good C prospect in Romine.  Our options for filling the 4-5 spots are not good without Joba or Hughes.  I’m assuming a Halladay acquisition means Pettitte is gone to save the $10M.

[30] I did the same. From that site, I am getting 626 strikes (181 called + 51 swinging + 213 foul/foul tips + 124 play outs + 37 singles + 10 doubles and 10 HRs) and 341 balls, so the percentage is 64.7 percent for fastballs (I counted wrong before). You wrote 57 percent, which is kind of low.

And he is throwing 250 strikes and 180 balls with his curve, so it is about 58 percent strikes thrown.

[34] I mistakenly left out the hits so your #s are better.

That being said, I think the general point about being able to control the ball in the zone with respect to fastball/curve still is valid.

The rumor is that the Jays want Buchholz and Casey Kelley, the Sox 2008 1st round pick who has spent time at pitcher (well) and SS (not well). He hasn’t played above A ball and seems destined to stick at pitcher. He’s the latest Sox-super hyped low A prospect, since “Theo loves him” (an actual quote). I suppose his equivalent in the Yanks system would be maybe Banuelos I guess.

So if that’s what the Jays want from the Sox, shouldn’t a package of Joba and Banuelos, or heathcott, or another high ceiling, low minors guy get it done, or do the Yankees have to pay their normal premium?

And I am sure I am undervaluing Kelley’s value, though I still have problems separating the NESPN/Sox hype from the actual value, especially of a guy who has yet to hit AA or pitch full time.

[33] Good point, that getting Halladay may preclude keeping Pettitte.  I think the assumption has been that they would still sign Pettitte, as you say since they’re going “all in”.  If they were to resign Pettitte than one of Joba/Hughes would be forced into the bullpen, lessening their value.  Montero is a piece to be kept as he may be like Edgar Martinez - enough bat that even as a DH he’ll be one of the top players in the league for a decade.

[36] I don’t think they can trade Heathcott.  I believe the rules are you can’t trade a player until one calender year afer he is drafted (or maybe signed).  So not until next summer is he trade-able.  They may still have to pay a premium, though I think Joba+Jackson should be plenty.

I think its more that he has such a whirlybird motion that limits his consistency.

I thought it was that AJ isn’t smart or pitching smart.

Regardless, I think if the Jays asked for Jackson and nothing else Cashman would obviously do it.  Saying, “prospects or cash but not both” is catchy, but it is clearly more complex than that.  I don’t know what Cashman considers too much.

That would be an offer that would be too good to refuse. So yes, every general rule has exceptions.

I wouldn’t trade Montero for Halladay.

The rumor is that the Jays want Buchholz and Casey Kelley, the Sox 2008 1st round pick who has spent time at pitcher (well) and SS (not well).

That’s not a rumor. That’s Feisand TOOHA.

Someone is misreading Feinsand.  He wrote that the Jays want those two players, not that they want ONLY those two players.  The words just don’t say that.  It may be that Toronto should want those two players in the deal ... in any event, that’s all the quoted language says.

Halladay is awesome.  But I think the Jays are going to find themselves in the same place Minny was in with Santana.

You’re trading for 1 year of Halladay (and will likely be on the hook for his salary that year) and a small negotiation window if you want to re-sign him.  Ok, what’s that worth?  I’m not sure it’s worth a good young pitcher like Clay Buccholtz or an excellent prospect like Jesus Montero, even if you know your arch-rival is in on the bidding. 

During the discussion over at River Ave re: trading for Josh Johnson, it was different (to me, anyway).  There you were talking about a 26 year old ace pitcher - the very thing we hope Joba Chamberlain and/of Phil Hughes will be in a couple of years and a different contract situation.  Halladay is, what, 32?  He is excellent.  But he’s not getting any younger, and he’ll cost a ton of money for what will likely be declining production (but also likely still damn good).

Halladay pitches deep into games - some of his value (in terms of e.g. WAR) I imagine comes from that.  Does that not mean he’s of relatively less value to a team with a strong deep bullpen?

[43]
Probably, but isn’t the bullpen performance the most volatile part of roster performance and the hardest to predict (and, therefore, the thing upon which you’d least want to rely)?

Yeah, Buchholz and Kelly are just the two central cogs in any deal for Halladay.

I think they would insist on Westmoreland as well, at the very least.

[43] You could argue that his CG’s allow the bullpen to be more rested, and then, be better in the games where they have to pitch 3-4 innings.

[42] One of the problems with Johnson is he’s only “done it” for one year, and at that in the NL East.  Halladay has met or exceeded Johnson’s production from last year in each of the last 4, and done it in the AL East.  Yes the age is definitely a concern.  I think any team that trades is going to want a window to sign Halladay “before” the trade is official, and if the Jays don’t extend it they’ll get a LOT less than Halladay’s worth.

I find myself mostly arguing the position to go get Halladay, but to be clear I’m on the fence.  On the one hand, he’s 32, it will take a ton of talent to get him, cost a ton of money, and perhaps keep the Yankees from addressing other needs (LF and DH).  On the other hand, he’s one of the top-5 pitchers in baseball, and looks to be a future HOF.  I guess until the potential costs become (players) become clearer I’ll continue to be on the fence…

Hmm…was looking through Cot’s and wondering if there were any non-Wells contracts Yankees could take to lower cost in prospects.  Overbay makes $10M next year, and you could do worse as a DH.  Especially as Overbay seems to hit lefties quite will (OPS ~.900 last year, ~.850 for career), which sets you up to use Posada as a DH and Cervelli C against lefties.  That would do a pretty good job of using up Yankees’s spending for 2010, but may lower the prospect cost significantly?  Just thinking “out loud”.

Or sign Holliday and a DH, put Joba and Hughes in the rotation, and see if Halladay is still available in July or a FA in the off-season if still needed.  When are pitchers and catchers?

Someone is misreading Feinsand.  He wrote that the Jays want those two players, not that they want ONLY those two players.  The words just don’t say that.  It may be that Toronto should want those two players in the deal ... in any event, that’s all the quoted language says.

Here’s what Feinsand wrote:

To land Halladay, Boston would likely have to give up Clay Buchholz, the organization’s top young pitcher, as well as Casey Kelly…

That’s sounds like nothing more than his opinion.

As to Josh Johnson, if my memory serves me right he pitched rather well against the Yanks this summer.  I think I’d make a trade for him if it were possible, however since there are no Yankee owners named Henry, the Marlins probably won’t consider a trade to NY.  Seriously, this guy looks like a horse and if he truly is on the market I could see the Red Sox courting him at some point, perhaps not if they corral Halliday. I would be bold enough to offer Joba,McAllister and Romine for him right now. I just can’t remember the Yanks doing any business with Florida in the past.

[46] I stuck “deep” into my comment at the last moment to deal with your point.  But ok, having CC going deep into games might make Halladay less valuable for the reason I suggested.

Of course a rotation headed by those two would lead to a whole lot of appearance for Mo.

[49]
Ah… er… no it doesn’t.  It sounds like he thinks they’d have to give those players up.

[52] We’ll have to agree to disagree, and more importantly, I don’t think Theo would give up both of them for Halladay.

Ah… er… no it doesn’t.  It sounds like he thinks they’d have to give those players up.

Actually, that’s my point. It’s merely what Feisand thinks, not necessarily what Anthopoulos thinks.

I think the key isn’t Halladay, it’s Joba (or Hughes).
We have very good idea of what Halladay is likely to be worth.
There’s a lot more conjecture involved in attributing values to J & H.

For those worried about Halladay’s age, consider the pitchers who started World Series games for the Yankees from 1996-2001.  I’ll list the pitcher, the year he joined the Yankees, and his age in that first year…

Jimmy Key - 1993 - 32
Andy Pettitte - 1995 - 23
David Cone - 1995 - 32
Kenny Rogers - 1996 - 31
David Wells - 1997 - 34
Orlando Hernandez - 1998 - 32
Roger Clemens - 1999 - 36
Denny Neagle - 2000 - 31
Mike Mussina - 2001 - 32

Aside from Andy Pettitte, not a single one of them was younger than 31 when they joined the Yankees, and aside from Neagle and Rogers, all did right by the Yankees.

In 2003, the Yankees rotation was Mussina (34), Pettitte (31), Clemens (40), Wells (40).

In 2009, the rotation was Sabathia (29), Burnett (32), Pettitte (37).

So in seven World Series, the Yankees have used exactly two starters (Pettitte and Sabathia) who joined the team before turning 30, and only one (Pettitte) who was younger than 29.  And only Pettitte was developed from within the organization.

[56] The Yankees didn’t give up anything approximating Joba or Hughes for any of those starters.

[56]:

1.  SSS
2. [57] is right.  Everyone wants Halladay.  No one wants to give up too much. 

3.  I don’t think people have any concern about Halladay at 33.  The questions are about how many guaranteed years it will take to sign him.

4. Pardon my French, but: Randy Johnson, Kevin Brown

The Yankees didn’t give up anything approximating Joba or Hughes for any of those starters.

Fair enough.  But part of my point is that the Yankees didn’t really NEED anybody like Joba or Hughes to succeed.  The Yankee formula that’s yielded the greatest success has been to import older, finished products to comprise a four-deep, veteran pitching staff.  And I think there’s an unfair bias against this clearly successful strategy for a few reasons:

1)  The perception that it’s unwise to invest in pitchers who are past 30, which I think is overstated when one considers the list of pitchers in my previous entry.

2)  The perception that you can’t or shouldn’t “buy” or “import” starting pitching, which seems to overemphasize the failed acquisitions of guys like Pavano, Brown, Wright, Vazquez, Johnson and Neagle, while de-emphasizing the successful acquisitions of everyone not named Andy Pettitte who’s started a World Series game for the Yankees since 1996.

3)  The perception that it’s universally wrong to be impatient with young starting pitching, which is true for most teams, but not necessarily true for a team like the Yankees who can afford to pay for established starters.

[59] The Yankee formula that’s yielded the greatest success has been to import older, finished products to comprise a four-deep, veteran pitching staff.

The Yankees adopted that strategy because they had failed to develop their own pitchers. Under prior CBAs, many teams couldn’t afford to retain their best starters as their salaries increased, so the Yankees were able to use their revenue advantage to exploit that market asymmetry. Subsequent CBAs have produced greater revenue sharing, and as a result, more teams have been able to retain their best players thereby limiting the Yankees’ options outside the organization. 

When Cash acquired more power, he stated that he wanted to change course and begin to promote from within; the early development of Hughes, Joba, and IPK appeared to vindicate that strategy.

The development of young pitchers, however, isn’t always linear. To this point, as [55] said, we are still unsure of the ultimate value of these young pitchers.

Beyond the question of value, there is the payroll size issue that may negate your assertion that “that the Yankees didn’t really NEED anybody like Joba or Hughes to succeed.”

As has been discussed before, the Yankees’ have already committed approximately $136 million for 2011 without factoring in a new contract for Jeter and possibly Rivera, as well as raises for some of their younger players. Adding another $20 million for Halladay would further reduce their financial flexibility. OTOH, keeping Joba, Hughes, et. al. would enable them to enhance that flexibility, which could become important if, for example, injuries or unexpected declines occur.

Having said that, Halladay could be an acquisition that enables the franchise to go on another championship run, but it could leverage their future in unacceptable ways.

As Mike K. said above, I’m on the fence.

[60]:

All good points.  I’m on the fence, too.  I’m just leaning towards going “all in” and acquiring a name starter right now, and am trying to make that argument.

I also think it’s interesting to consider how old the Yankees’ recent World Series rotations have been.  Maybe it’s just a coincidence/SSS, but I think there’s something to it.

And of course it’s difficult to evaluate this stuff when we don’t really know what the Yankees’ budget is from year to year.

By the way, that budget spreadsheet you linked to is awesome.  I haven’t seen that.  Thanks.