I must be jaded, because when I look at those numbers, they don’t look stupid-big to me.  $140 to $150M?  No big deal!  Sheesh.  What has FA come to?

The economy is in shambles.

Clearly.

I am concerened about the lack of atention that Cashman and the Yankees seem to have on upgrading the offense. I just read a rumor of getting Peavy for Swisher and Cano and also Hank said that he is prepared to offer a contract to Lowe and Burnett.
But how about the offense? Aren’t they concerned about a team that scored less than 800 runs last season and they will let go his second most valuable bat on Abreu? Also, they should be concerned about Posada’s ability to catch full time. But it seems like they are not. In fact they are thinking about trading Cano and Swisher for more pitching.

Maybe I am wrong, but if we land CC and Pettitte, we should be very happy with a rotation of CC, Wang, Joba, Pettitte and Hughes. We don’t need to trade for Peavy or to sign Lowe or Burnett. In terms of pitching we are fine, but we have to upgrade this offense that projects to score about 850 runs.

I wonder how much of the decision not to make an early offer to Teixeira is tactical (based on the way Boras prefers to draw things out).  I hope that the Yankees are interested—just not so interested that they are willing to pay 10/200, which might be what it would take to get Boras to accept quickly.  This way, Boras will have a chance to confirm what the market is willing to pay, and the Yankees can add a little to that and have a good chance to make it work.

850 runs is pretty good.  Texas was the only team in the AL to score more than that, they just broke 900.  Boston was second with 845 runs.  Tampa Bay?  They scored 774 runs and ended up with 97 wins.  If they get Sabathia, I’m very comfortable going into the season with the starting rotation of CC, Wang, Joba, Pettitte, and Hughes, with what should be a fairly strong bullpen, and a vastly improved defense.

Btw, I see the 6/140 offer as a good sign.  It’s not that far above SG’s value estimate, and I’d much rather overpay a little for the best available free agent than for Lowe/Brunett.  Even if it ended up at 6/150, I could live with that.  CC will have some marketing value to the team on top of his value generating wins.

No one here argues that more runs scored at the expense of runs scored/saved would be good, do they?

I don’t understand the obsession with adding offense. We have more than enough and the best player in the game. The Yanks are not going to make a run at 1000 runs every year and thats ok. Remember pitching and defense? they are pretty important too.

Sure, defense is important, and Teixera plays excellent defense.  It’s a matter of sound investments.  If you sign Tex, you know you’re getting a top-tier player for many years at a position where we have a gaping hole.  The pitchers?  Their arms might all fall off tomorrow.  I’m willing to take that risk on CC, but Burnett and Lowe?  Pass.  At least one of those contracts will be considered an albatross in the coming years.

On the contrary, dcristal, I think rilke’s reacting to what seems to be common wisdom: smart teams get pitching, dumb teams get offense.  (Pitching is what wins you [insert whatever here].  Good pitching beats good hitting.  Etc.)  There has been some discussion here that, given injuries, the pitching was more effective relative to avg. and/or expectations than the hitting, surprising as that may seem.  And that, therefore, hitting is more of a need for this team, right now, than pitching.

...we should be very happy with a rotation of CC, Wang, Joba, Pettitte and Hughes.

I don’t know about that.  I don’t think Hughes can get any better by pitching in AAA, but he still has something to prove at the major league level.  We should be optimistic about him, but we shouldn’t be assuming anything.  He and Chamberlain will need to be limited in any case.  Wang’s injury should heal completely, but might set him back in terms of being ready to go full bore by opening day.  And while Pettitte almost certainly would be a mighty fine number five, he doesn’t look so good to me as a number two or three.  So if that’s your five, I’ve gotta ask how you feel about six through eight, because you’re going to be seeing a fair bit of them—quite possibly sooner rather than later.

As far as upgrading the offense, we need to remember who Teixeira’s agent is (Boras), how he operates (always wait as long as possible) and what he’s looking for (ten, YES TEN, years).  I suspect that the Yankees’ plan with Teixeira is to wait and hope that nobody ponies up enough to satisfy Boras, and then try to swoop in with something ridiculous in terms of annual salary, but shorter in duration.  I don’t really see that strategy working, but I understand where it’s coming from.

I don’t understand the obsession with adding offense

Chicks dig the long-ball.

I guess my position is that the offense is to a point where nothing needs to be done to it that would sacrifice value in other areas.  So getting Teixeria?  Sure, all for it, as long as it’s not an either/or situation with CC, but we’ll know about CC before Tex. 

Dunn or Burrell?  No thank you.  Manny?  Please no.  Please.
Now, trading for a player?  I’d be very open to this, the problem is we have no idea who is available, and what it would take to get them.

I’m willing to take that risk on CC, but Burnett and Lowe?  Pass.

I’m not too worried.  Hank didn’t say that offers for Burnett and Lowe would be forthcoming soon, he said that the Yankees “are prepared” to make offers to them.  Sounds like they’re just sending a signal to these guys that they might not want to sign with another team too quickly.  And whatever reservations we might have about any non-Sabathia FA pitcher, I think we’d all prefer that they still be on the market if the Yanks happen to miss out on CC.

I wouldn’t mind an offer to Burnett.  The problem is that he’s going to command well more than he’s worth, especially considering the injury concerns.  So unless by some miracle he’s going to take less than expected, its not a good move.

all things being equal, the yankees could use an ace more than his equally talented hitting equal, because of the playoffs. i still think that they’ll be getting both tex and cc.

I would love to sign Teixera, but if we don’t do it I hope they sign Dunn to play first this season, with Matsui gone he could DH the rest of his contract, what’s wrong with it? And sure there are other backup plans if we don’t sign Teixera, just don’t go in to the season with this lineup, and please don’t trade Cano and Swisher for Peavy.

I don’t see the Padres taking Cano and Swisher for Peavy.  They’re trying to trim payroll, and probably won’t contend for at least 2-3 years.  They don’t want MLB talent back, they want high-ceiling prospects around the AA level.  Siwsher and Cano make >$10M a year, they wouldn’t go for that.

I’m not too worried about a Peavy trade either.  He reportedly doesn’t care for either the AL or the east coast.  It doesn’t sound like he’d waive his NTC to come to the Yankees.

About Dunn & similar… we call hitters who strike out a lot “free swingers” and oppose them to the patient hitters who raise pitch counts.  It seems silly, but hitters who strike out a lot do tending to see at least three pitches per at bat.  Are there high-strikeout hitters who tend to strike-out looking because of excess patience?  In other words - does a high strikeout rate vary in its relationship to pitches seen?
Just wondering.

Are there high-strikeout hitters who tend to strike-out looking because of excess patience?

Yes.  Dunn and Burrell are exhibits A and B.  Perenially among the leaders in both walks and strikeouts.  Guys like Mark Reynolds, who strike out 200 times while only drawing 60 or so walks, are much harder to come by for the simple reason that it’s pretty hard to be all that valuable with that profile.  Most real free swingers don’t get branded as such, because they make a lot of contact early in the count and therefore don’t strike out as much as guys who work the count.

“I think rilke’s reacting to what seems to be common wisdom: smart teams get pitching, dumb teams get offense.”

No, I meant that a team doesn’t need to improve its offense, or its pitching/defense, it needs to improve its R/RA.  If RA can be improved (in a cost and risk efficient way) more than R, that’s what it should do.

Yes, of course.  Doesn’t it follow that a percentage increase in R is as good as a percentage decrease in RA?  & doesn’t there seem to be a belief out there that the latter is somehow better, more reliable, than the former?

In fact they are thinking about trading Cano and Swisher for more pitching.

really?  this is a “fact”?  or is it just a rumor with no basis in anything?

the Yankees aren’t going to trade what is currenly their 1st and 2nd basemen for Peavy.  what would they then do?  sign Teixeira and Hudson?  what if they fail to do that?  they aren’t going to leave themselves completely exposed like that.

“Doesn’t it follow that a percentage increase in R is as good as a percentage decrease in RA?”

Sure.  It’s been claimed that run prevention is more effective in short series (which I don’t believe, not based on anything though).  I’m just arguing against “they need more offense” per se.  If more offense (relative to what we have) is available cheaply/less riskily this year then by all means.

“It doesn’t sound like he’d waive his NTC to come to the Yankees.”

He already said he would.

It’s been claimed that run prevention is more effective in short series

I think one reasons this is claimed is that your top pitchers pitch a higher percentage of the innings in a short series, especially if you consider the off-days that are available with the current format.  You don’t need a fifth starter, and Mo can pitch in more games (or have a longer appearance) than during the regular season because of the format.  Because of this, a team of 5 league average starters would do worse in a playoff series against a team with 1 ace, 3 average starters, and 1 below average starter.

Doesn’t it follow that a percentage increase in R is as good as a percentage decrease in RA?

It actually depends on the conditions.  Increasing R is more valuable in a low scoring environment.  Decreasing RA is more valuable in a high scoring environment.  One can extrapolate from this to argue that you’re better off improving what you’re already good at rather than trying to become more balanced.  I’m not saying that I necessarily buy that, but people smarter than I have suggested it.

& doesn’t there seem to be a belief out there that the latter is somehow better, more reliable, than the former?

Better?  Yeah, people probably do believe that, although I think that’s largely for aesthetic reasons.  More reliable?  I don’t know about that.  If the CW is that pitching is more reliable, then why is it also the CW that you can never have too much?  You can never have too much pitching precisely because pitching isn’t all that reliable.

He already said he would.

When?  Where?  Seriously asking, since I just read stories about his reluctance this morning.

It actually depends on the conditions.  Increasing R is more valuable in a low scoring environment.

I really like thinking about how much context changes the value of different things.

Batting runs is also very context dependent. In beer-league softball, each out is a huge blow to your run scoring, while if you’re playing in a league dominated by cyborg-Pedro’s, drawing a walk doesn’t do your team much good because there’s very little chance someone can drive you in, so slugging is much more valuable.

Mmmm . . .  beer league.

Well, I’m off to Moe’s!

Last week his agent said he added the Yankees to the list of teams he would accept a trade to.

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/yankees/2008/11/03/2008-11-03_jake_peavy_puts_yanks_on_trade_list_as_p.html

Either way, it’s not going to happen.

Increasing R is more valuable in a low scoring environment.  Decreasing RA is more valuable in a high scoring environment.  One can extrapolate from this to argue that you’re better off improving what you’re already good at rather than trying to become more balanced.

Is that the correct extrapolation?  If your team has a good offense and a shitty pitching staff, the games would be a high-scoring environment, thus improving RA would be more valuable.  This means going towards a more balanced team.  Similarly with the poor offense/good pitching team.  In the low scoring environment, improving R would be better. 

That’s also not even considering the fact that it’s easier (in general) to take a poor performing position and upgrade it to average than it is to upgrade an already well-performing position.

True or false:

Teams score exponentially more runs when there is a smaller rather than greater gap in quality between their best offensive player and their second best offensive player.

In other words:

If the Yankees improve the pitching but leave their offense as is, do we have to worry that they are neutralizing their most potent weapon?

It just so happens the SG has run those sims on this very site.

One of the many appealing things about Tex is that he is so productive from both sides. This season the Yankees stranded a ton of baserunners. Tex would be a big help in that regard, especially with Abreu and his 100+ RBIs leaving the fold.

That is interesting. I don’t know if I would consider our (relatively) definite non A-Rod starters uncapable.

Jeter showed us that he is going to get his standard numbers evern with a mediocre start.
Posada is a top 3 offensive catcher **when healthy**
Cano WILL improve over last season
Damon is a solid bat and had a good offensive season
Matsui is a solid bat as well when healthy

Yes our runs were down last year, but we did lose Arod for a month. Melky was the leading HR hitter into May. Posada’s replacements were offensive black holes. Cano flat out sucked. Matsui was having a good season until his knee went out.

I really do not see any need to sign Tex.

Multiple Choice:

We are more likely to get into the playoffs and succeed if

A) We get Tex
B) We get CC
C) It is not an either/or
D) none of the above

I forgot to add Nady and the fact that we sucked with RISP last season. It will be hard to be that bad with RISP next season.

“It actually depends on the conditions.  Increasing R is more valuable in a low scoring environment.”

But what I said wasn’t that increasing runs isn’t more valuable, but that increasing the PERCENTAGE should be the same.  Obviously, the closer you come to a no-scoring league, the less the marginal return on an effort to lower runs.  However, in that context, competition to do so would be greater.  it would take a greater investment/ability to get one fewer run scored against you, which would presumably make it more valuable, because it could be the only run scored in a game.  If you’re in a league where most games are 1-0 or 2-1 affairs, the ability to eliminate a run against has still got to be at least as valuable as the ability to add a run for - you could be guaranteeing yourself a shut-out.

“Melky was the leading HR hitter into May.”

Is that likely to be a good thing?

I think that was the point.  It was a very bad thing.  Most likely not to be repeated.

I really don’t understand wanting Lowe and/or Burnett.

Let’s just speculate that they have ~$25M-$30M if Sabathia takes the contract that he was offered (or something close in AAV.)

Wouldn’t the best way to spend that money be a combination of Teixeira (~$20M) and Pettitte (~$10-$12M)? Lowe and Burnett will probably both be better than Pettitte, but by how much? It just doesn’t seem to make sense.

Cashman also balked at the price tag of Teixiera and Sabathia, but the AAV for Sabathia and Lowe and Burnett would likely exceed Teixiera and Sabathia.

Obviously the assumption here is that Teixiera doesn’t want a contract that’s something crazy like 8 or 9 (or 10) years.

I agree with J.  (Does that mean I’m agin’ the Frog?)

And as for the Home Run Melky thing - “Oh.” (sheepishly).

Wouldn’t the best way to spend that money be a combination of Teixeira (~$20M) and Pettitte (~$10-$12M)? Lowe and Burnett will probably both be better than Pettitte, but by how much? It just doesn’t seem to make sense.

Maybe they’re thinking in terms of total payout over the lengths of the contracts? Assume the Yankees sign CC for about $150 million.

Tex would probably get something similar. Pettitte, maybe $10 million for a year. So that’s in excess of $300 million over the length of the three contracts. If they were to sign Lowe and Burnett, maybe that’s another combined $100 million. So $250 million total, plus shorter contracts for Lowe/Burnett (3-5 years, compared to around 7 for Tex) with the spots left by Lowe/Burnett filled with cheap pitchers that are coming up from the minors?

This isn’t to say I agree with this. I would also much rather just sign Tex and Pettitte. I’m just trying to come up with an answer as to why they might go with Lowe/Burnett.

Devil’s advocate to dcristal:

Yes, it would seem all but inevitable that BABIP and with RISP should be better next year; Cano has GOT to be better; I’d even be pretty confident in a prediction that A-Rod will be better.
But…
Will Damon be as big a bat as he was in the 2nd half of last year?  And stay healthy?
*Will* Posada be Posado - the big-time catcher, and healthy?
Will Matsui’s knees hold up?
Will Cano come back to the point that he’s almost leading the league in hitting (which is almost necessary for him to be productive, given his walk rate)?

I see your points on the plus side, but there is stuff to worry about here.

Boreas posts to this blog!

How awesome was that Sabathia/Wang duel in the spring where the Yanks won 1-0 on a Melky solo homer?  Chances of that happening at that time?  .0005%?  How about 4 K’s in 2 IP for the Joba/Mo combo?  When does baseball start again?

I’m not sure where I first saw this (here, RAB, somewhere else?), but I read a pretty good point about the Hank quote. Just because he said they were “prepared to make offers to Burnett and Lowe” doesn’t necessarily mean they will. They could just have proposals in reserve, for use in case they can’t sign CC.

Here, earlier.

Ah, yeah, there it is, right on this page. Go me for searching.

We just got a little thinner at SP. We sold Rasner to a japanese team.

How does that work?  Are there rules?  Obviously, there are rules about players moving between teams in the league, & between those teams & their minor league system.  But can you just sell a player out of the league and out of the hemisphere?

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3705150

That’s the story. Sounds like Razzle Dazzle and his agent wanted to get him to Japan and Cashman made it happen. I wish him well, and he will probably have a decent career in Japan.

He looked at Igawa and said “hey, I can do that.”  I hope he does well.

Clearly, that $1 million goes toward CC’s uniforms.

That’s just for the ink of the pinstripes.

This isn’t to say I agree with this. I would also much rather just sign Tex and Pettitte. I’m just trying to come up with an answer as to why they might go with Lowe/Burnett.

The way I’m reading this now, it seems that Cashman’s plan is to sign CC, ONE of Burnett/Lowe, and probably Pettitte.  Joba is only going to get about 20 starts next year as a #5, and Hughes starts the season in AAA and comes up when there is an injury.  I don’t think there is any plan to sign BOTH of Burnett/Lowe.

I’m personally against Burnett.  I think he’s going to get something like 5/75 which is way overpaying.  Lowe, I like.  Not for 5 years.  For 3 years, okay.  I wrote yesterday that though I like the idea of Hughes as the 4th (Joba is fifth because of start limitations) starter next year, I can see letting him start in AAA.  Since his innings will be limited as well.

I know that Rasner’s 2008 line was ultimately ugly, but we know that mixed in with those really bad starts were some really good starts. It seems like he could have been a decent throw in to a team looking for some kind of cheap starting pitching (Washington, perhaps) or maybe just a flip to add some position prospect depth in the minors.

So, I’m thinking then that the $1M return for Rasner means that maybe Cashman’s budget is a little tighter than we think, or no one wanted Rasner at all.

Cashman’s plan is to sign CC, ONE of Burnett/Lowe, and probably Pettitte

If I’m Cashman, I’m beating down Mussina’s door to come back and play. With him and Pettite, all you need to do is sign Sabathia and you have an elite rotation with space available for Teixiera. Having to pick up Burnett or Lowe, two guys with penty of warts, would be a disaster.

This team would be filled out completely if they added Sabathia, Teixiera and Mussina and then traded Damon, who has a limited NTC.  Granted Matsui may not be able to be counted on, but filling the DH spot in season is certainly going to be easier than filling a position (off the top of my head, Miranda can DH against RHP, Posada can DH against LHP with Molina catching.) Swisher/Gardner-Melky/Nady is a + defensive outfield. Teixiera/Cano is a + (with the potential for ++) defensive right side of the infield. Jeter/ARod would do well to be within an arms reach of an average defensive left side of the infield.

If you believe in Nady.  I’m thinking this is a perfect time to sell high.  Is there any strong reason to think that he’s suddenly last year’s player going forward rather than the player he’d always been?

What would you want for Nady?  I’m not sure what they could get that would be worth more to them than a youngish, slightly above league average corner outfielder.

I really don’t understand wanting Lowe and/or Burnett.

Obviously the assumption here is that Teixiera doesn’t want a contract that’s something crazy like 8 or 9 (or 10) years.

J, I agree with you completely. The law of diminishing marginal utility applies to baseball. The Yankees can afford to invest in top level young talent when it is available. They cannot afford to squander their resources on mediocre players. CC, Wang, Joba, and Pettitte would be a very good October rotation. Burnett, Lowe, or Sheets would be a waste of money. Eventually the farm will produce a at least a couple of useful starters.

The Yankees have > $75 mil. coming of the books this season, and > $30 mil. next season. CC + Pettitte + Tex might cost ~$60 mil. in 2009. If they get Matt Holliday as a FA after 2009 they would still be shedding ~$20 mil. off their 2010 payroll and have a much better team. Position players like Tex don’t come along often, he would benefit the team for years. Flexibility is primarily a fallback position. Winning teams make profitable commitments.

I think Rasner’s departure was strictly the Yanks helping him out.

He came to them to ask them to let him go play in Japan.

So they figured they’d help him out (especially since they likely didn’t see a spot for him on the 09 team) and if he ever returns to America, I bet the Yanks will be the first team he contacts.

I’d trade Nady for a decent prospect.  Obviously, I don’t know for certain that this is possible, but it seems reasonable, esp. given his valuation as represented by the trade in which we got him (reference to MC’s logic, somewhere above).

Such a move would also prevent what I think would be ill-advised reliance upon his not regressing not-too-impressive to his norm.

I’d far, far rather keep Abreu and coat the outfield wall in chocolate than leave Nady out there.

Did anyone see Melvin’s weird comments about the Yanks’ offer to CC?

“It sounds like they’re overbidding,” Melvin told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. “If the speculation is true that we’ve offered CC $100 million, why would you offer $140 million? Why wouldn’t you offer $110 million?”

I get that it is likely just PR, to make the Brewers fans believe that there was nothing he could do when the Yankees are making “crazy” offers, but it is still an odd thing to say.

And I love the line “if the speculation is true that WE have offered CC $100 million.”
That’s hilarious.

Doug Melvin: “I’m not going to speculate on what I may or may not have offered Sabathia.”

If your team has a good offense and a shitty pitching staff, the games would be a high-scoring environment, thus improving RA would be more valuable.  This means going towards a more balanced team.  Similarly with the poor offense/good pitching team.  In the low scoring environment, improving R would be better.

Obviously you run into a diminishing returns situation at some point.  But if you have an 800 run offense and average pitching, you could be better off adding another bat and just trying to bludgeon people into submission.  Or if you’ve got an average offense but are one pitcher away from having the best rotation in the league, adding that pitcher probably helps you more than adding a comparably valued bat.

That’s also not even considering the fact that it’s easier (in general) to take a poor performing position and upgrade it to average than it is to upgrade an already well-performing position.

Isn’t that really a different question?  Most teams probably have at least one glaring weakness in either the lineup or the rotation or the bullpen, if not all three.  So most teams have a spot or two one either side of the ball where upgrading to average is a viable option.

I’d trade Nady for a decent prospect

Because they added Swisher, if they sign Teixiera, they can now trade Nady, Damon or Matsui. Each has different kinds of value. Nady is relatively cheap and probably is a 110 OPS+ guy with average defense at a corner OF spot. Damon is the same with a little less defense, more offense, but more expensive.  Matsui has the potential to be a difference maker with the bat at DH and could very well put up a 135 OPS+ and can play LF in a pinch or if you can afford the defensive hit.

So if they signed Teixiera, they’re again dealing from a strength in terms of corner OF/middle of the order/DH types.

It just makes too much sense to sign Teixiera and then make another move, doesn’t it?

If the speculation is true that we’ve offered CC $100 million, why would you offer $140 million?

In case Melvin reads this blog, I would say the answer is that it’s to scare off other teams.

And perhaps also because they’ve actually, really intend to get him to sign, in spite of his expressed preference for the other league/part of the country.

Also, how could a professional baseball man even begin to justify failure to read this blog?

Melvin says if $100, why $140 because he doesn’t want the fans to know the market is $40 more than he offered, I guess.  Depends though on whether they’re going for, “We’re too small-market to compete, build us a new stadium/raise the revenue share/come see us fight the good fight against the big spenders” or the “NYY is nuts” scenario above.

[67] I think I read the formula the other way.  It’s hard to improve a good *fense percentagewise [that is, (delta *fense)/*fense], so one should all else equal improve what’s bad.

J, what would be the advantage of making the hypothetical trade you propose? Swisher and Nady are defensively versatile, Damon and Matsui are old. Factor in injuries and days off for everyone, the Posada situation, the potential poor performance of Gardner/Melky, and aren’t there enough at-bats to go around for everyone even if they do sign Texeira?

what would be the advantage of making the hypothetical trade you propose?

Matsui and Damon each make $13M, Nady will likely make $5M or so via arbitration. If Cashman is working with, say $30M right now, making that number $35M could allow him to get Teixiera and Pettitte and still come in where he wants to.

Also, if you trade any one of those guys, you’re getting something back in return. The return likely depends on who is being traded, but it can be a way to recover from the 2008 draft year in which they didn’t sign 2 of their top 3 picks.

I was just thinking back to the Marte deal and 3/12 (with a 4/0.25 option on a 4th year) is starting to seem better to me than 1/6 if the Yankees are willing to walk away from the future years should that seem like the right decision.  Imagine the deal as if it were structured as accepting the option and then spending another $6.25m to get 3 1 year options, with the first two options being for Marte to play for free that year and the 3rd for $3.75m.  As long as there is a better than even chance that Marte continues to be worth 4-6m/year for the option periods and they can correctly walk away from him without giving him too much playing time or roster space if he isn’t working out in future years, them paying $2m/option seems like at least an ok deal (an option on his future years is probably worth significantly more than a B compensation pick, and he probably won’t be an A next year).

The reason this might be good tactics is that relief pitcher performance is tremendously variable, so options are worth more than usual (imagine, for example, that he hits his 80% projection and has a 2.79 ERA next season;  that might make him uneconomical to sign in 2010 since he figures to be worth having, but will regress to the mean enough to make him worth far less than the near closer money that he might be offered).

The worrisome scenario would be if they aren’t willing to walk away from years 2 and 3 under circumstances where they wouldn’t have picked up an option (say, he hits his 20% projection in 2009, making him project as replacement level in 2010).  Does anyone have examples of Cashman’s willingness to abandon (small) sunk costs when it was the right decision?

So let’s play with a few line ups. This assume picking up Teixiera, which this whole thing is argument for:

If you trade Damon:

SS Jeter
LF Swisher
3B Rodriguez
1B Teixiera
DH Matsui
RF Nady
C Posada
2B Cano
CF Gardner

If you trade Matsui:

DH Damon
SS Jeter
3B Rodriguez
1B Teixiera
RF Nady
C Posada
LF Swisher
2B Cano
CF Gardner

If you trade Nady:

LF Damon
SS Jeter
3B Rodriguez
1B Teixeira
C Posada/Molina (obviously this batting order changes a bit.)
DH Miranda/Posada
RF Swisher
2B Cano
CF Gardner

Nady’s cheap. Damon will likely be type A when he leaves and doesn’t even have a full NTC.  Matsui is a big middle of the order bat as his upside.

That last line up is solid defensively and has 3 switch hitters, 4 if Melky outplays gardner for the job.  Having Swisher really opens so many things up.

I doubt the Yankees would get the better end of a trade involving Damon or Matsui, but they would be in good shape as long as they sign Tex.

2009 lineup with no trade:
LF Damon
SS Jeter
1B Teixeira
3B Rodriguez
DH Matsui
C Posada
2B Cano
RF Nady
CF Swisher/Gardner

2010 lineup assuming the acquisition of Matt Holliday:
SS Jeter
1B Teixeira
3B Rodriguez
LF Holliday
DH ???
C Posada
RF Nady
2B Cano
CF Jackson/Swisher

I don’t think we can assume Teixeira for anything. If they sign CC to a deal like they proposed I don’t think they consider Tex, given the price tag. Cashman has already explicitly said that it’s “nuts” to spend that kind of monet in one offseason.

Cashman has already explicitly said that it’s “nuts” to spend that kind of monet in one offseason.

I read the quote from Cashman, and I think the entire line of discussion is centered on how it doesn’t make sense to say that they can’t afford Teixeira and Sabathia, but then to have Hank Steinbrenner impy that they can afford Sabathia and one of Lowe and Burnett. The between the former and latter is probably about $5M, which, if it really means that much, can be recouped by trading Damon, Matsui or Nady, and results in a much better team.

The difference between

I don’t think we can assume Teixeira for anything. If they sign CC to a deal like they proposed I don’t think they consider Tex, given the price tag. Cashman has already explicitly said that it’s “nuts” to spend that kind of monet in one offseason.

I wouldn’t pay that much attention to those kinds of statements in the middle of negotiations. The Yankees have a lot of money coming off, and holes to fill. They need to spend money when their is an attractive acquisition to be had. A better team means more revenue.

i think one of the key points in getting Swisher is that the Yankees can continue to look for one more bat, and that it can come at any number of postions and they can move Swisher accordingly. 

right now, they should be looking for an upgrade in CF or 1B or LF/RF. 

i could live with Swisher at 1B if they aren’t playing Gardner in CF. 

as for Rasner, he was out of options.  it is also unlikely that he would have passed through waivers again (although i am guessing). 

so, the yankees were going to have to keep him on the active roster all season.  he was probably going to be lost for nothing at some point.  Cashman turned it into $1M (although i think it was more about honoring the guy’s request than the money).

Aceves = the new Rasner.

We love to write out lineups, don’t we?

FJM is ending.  Sniff. 

Hey, here’s a new idea: a blog, in the style of FJM, all about skewering the NYC sports media.

We love to write out lineups, don’t we?

Raise your hand if you write line ups in class instead of paying attention.

The difference between the former and latter is probably about $5M…

The difference <b>per season>b> might be as little as $5M, but Teixeira is going to require a much longer commitment.  It’s kind of cute the way we talk about liking say, Lowe, if it’s only for three years, or Tex if it’s only for five, but those are pipe dreams.  Boras is looking for an A-Rod type contract for Teixeira.  He won’t get that, but he’ll certainly get Soriano years at more dollars.  How do we feel about that?

How do we feel about that?

Someone made a good point about Teixiera.  He’s entering his age 29 season. He’s not going to get a 10 year deal, but would he really want an 8 year deal?  If he gets one, what is he going to be looking at after that - 3 years? And what if he really falls off the map in years 7 and 8? There is certainly a case to be made that if he doesn’t get 10, he should look for something that takes him to age 34, where he can reasonably expect to get a 5 year deal after that.

Hey, here’s a new idea: a blog, in the style of FJM, all about skewering the NYC sports media.

That’s a crazy thought. I wonder if anyone would be interested.

Also, anyone ever been to Hanover College?

There is certainly a case to be made that if he doesn’t get 10, he should look for something that takes him to age 34, where he can reasonably expect to get a 5 year deal after that.

Have you run that one by Mr. Boras yet.  You’re thinking like a sabrmetrician, not an agent.  An agent will be looking for as many guaranteed years as possible, with an early opt-out to cover the possibility that his client might be better off hitting the market again at a younger age.

This is probably nonsense, but something I’ve been wondering about lately.

Given that most people have been saying that they’d prefer a shorter in years, more lucrative in dollars type contract for Teix, isn’t an early opt out close the perfect solution?

It looks to the agent like a concession, and with an agent like Boras, the player is almost guaranteed to use it. So, you can offer the less preferable amount of years and be relatively sure you’re only committing to the ones before the opt out year. Obviously, this is contingent on the player being able to get a better deal in an open market, so you place the opt out early enough in the contract that the player will still be productive (so, three or so years for Teix?) and some other team is bound to overpay.

And by “close,” I mean clause.

Obviously you run into a diminishing returns situation at some point.  But if you have an 800 run offense and average pitching, you could be better off adding another bat and just trying to bludgeon people into submission.  Or if you’ve got an average offense but are one pitcher away from having the best rotation in the league, adding that pitcher probably helps you more than adding a comparably valued bat.

I agree with the diminishing returns point.  But the way I see it, the assertion that its better to increase an already potent offense or bolster an already good pitching staff is mutually exclusive with the assertion that a run saved is more important in a high-scoring environment and a run scored is more important in a low-scoring environment.

This would be an interesting thing to run the sims on.  Take a team that scores 800 and gives up 700 and see whether preventing 20 runs or scoring 20 more runs gives a better result. 

Isn’t that really a different question?  Most teams probably have at least one glaring weakness in either the lineup or the rotation or the bullpen, if not all three.

I agree, that was a different point altogether.  I was just mentioning it because to me, it strengthened the argument to strengthen your weakness.

I don’t see that at all, DaPuj.  A run saved is devalued in a high-scoring environment - just as a run scored is.  Any given run is worth less if more are being scored per unit of game played.

I think the issue is different.  Rilke is surely right that, statistically speaking, it should be easier to get a greater bang for your buck by bolstering the team’s weakness than in an attempt to upgrade a strength.  The counter-argument would seem to be that adding offense to an already rich offense has a synergetic effect, increasing the effectiveness of your existing offense by protecting other batters & using them to protect the new player, by eliminating the relief for the pitcher that a weak spot in the line-up constitutes.

The claim in the sabercommunity is that there is no such thing as protection.

Is the claim that combining good hitters is equivalent to simply adding their performances?  That there are no synergetic effects whatsoever?  That would be surprising, but if it’s backed up by the data, one would have to accept it, I suppose.

Is the claim that combining good hitters is equivalent to simply adding their performances?  That there are no synergetic effects whatsoever?  That would be surprising, but if it’s backed up by the data, one would have to accept it, I suppose.

Whether or not “protection” exists (with the sabremetric consensus closer to “it doesn’t”), there are some synergistic effects.  A player who gets on base 100 times will score a higher fraction of those times when he has teammates with higher SLG.  Similarly, a player with high SLG will get more RBI if his teammates have high OBP.

A runs created formula attempts to address this by creating an offensive context and looking at a player’s marginal impact given that context.

I don’t know all the details of the math that makes linear weights work in spite of that synergy, but I suspect that what is happening is that the LW measure of a player also includes his first order effect on the offensive context for his teammates.  There might still be 2nd order effects as a result of several players being much better than the baseline context, but the better run estimators work across a broad range of contexts, so it might take a 2 run / game or 9 run / game extreme context to cause the estimates to break down.

Rilke is surely right that, statistically speaking, it should be easier to get a greater bang for your buck by bolstering the team’s weakness than in an attempt to upgrade a strength.

That’s not really a statistical argument; it’s just a “more room for improvement” argument.  It’s also changing the original question, which had nothing to do with how easy or hard it is to accomplish a given upgrade, but was just about whether the offensive or defensive upgrade would be more beneficial assuming they were comparable.  If I have some free time later, I’ll see if I can find the article(s) that planted the weird thought in my mind.

...there are no synergetic effects whatsoever?  That would be surprising…

It certainly would be surprising.  Aside from solo home runs, offense is almost by definition synergistic.  A team with little slugging wastes a lot of its OBP.  A team with low OBP doesn’t maximize the value of its power.  “No such thing as protection” isn’t the same as no such thing as synergy.

I don’t know all the details of the math that makes linear weights work in spite of that synergy, but I suspect that what is happening is that the LW measure of a player also includes his first order effect on the offensive context for his teammates.

Right.  When we calculate the value of say a single, it includes the value of that single in driving in a run as well as the value of it leading to eventually scoring a run as well.

There might still be 2nd order effects as a result of several players being much better than the baseline context, but the better run estimators work across a broad range of contexts, so it might take a 2 run / game or 9 run / game extreme context to cause the estimates to break down.

Yeah, and it’s also important to look at runs scored in terms of outs, not plate appearances.  That rewards a higher OBP team more accurately.  So the synergy of a strong offense should at least be partly captured by any good run estimator, although there are further ancillary effects that we can’t measure, like deeper pitch counts wearing out a pitcher.

As an aside, baseball has other cumulative processes besides scoring runs by first getting on base and then advancing.  Tiring an opposing pitcher is one of the larger ones.  Still, this could potentially be accounted for by all batting results which add pitches (walks, hits, and, to a lesser degree, strikeouts) already including an implicit value for the degree to which the extra pitches tired the pitcher.  That estimate would be an average (since we don’t know from the box score how many pitches were thrown resulting in, say, a walk).  The big problem with doing things that way would be if tiring pitchers is strongly nonlinear (e.g. if the 2nd walk in an inning was significantly more tiring than the first).  It’s ok if tiring pitchers is weakly nonlinear (if, say, the 5th walk is noticeably more tiring than the first 4), since rare events won’t make much difference to player value.

So what we really need to see, to answer this question, is one additional permutation of the tests SG did a while back as to balance in line-ups (all avg hitters, I think, vs. all avg. plus one great hitter & one subpar hitter, etc.), running - was it 1000 seasons?  Wow…

This time, we’d want to see whether synergy means that adding a super hitter to a super line-up adds a synergy-boosted amount to its success vs. adding the same hitter to an avg. or poor line-up.

In other words, the theory of what’s recently, somewhat annoyingly, called the “round” line-up.

BUT can the system take into account, even theoretically, working the pitcher (consistent high pitch counts?)  Or the putative effect attribute to “round” line-ups - the wearing effect of facing consistently better hitting, without a break?

Alternatively, I don’t know if existing game logs would be a better way of testing whether this kind of thing really is happening IRL.