well, with all that good news coming from the yankees camp i’m sure california will up their offer just a bit to get their deal done before christmas.

Progress? At $40-$50 million above any other current offer, some progress. The farce continues.

If C.C. signs a 6 year deal with a 2 or 3 year opt out should Yankee fans make it their personal mission to make sure he is unhappy?  C.C for 2 or 3 years would be every GM (and fans) dream.

However I’m a little concerned.  If they sign C.C. and get smart by going after short term options to round out the rotation like Sheets and Pettitte then the have no type A free agents left.

What makes much more sense is to get C.C., sign Sheets OR Pettitte, round out the rotation with Garland or Byrd type player and then use the final type A slot for offense.  Hopefully Teix but I’ve all but given up on that dream so someone like Dunn might have to do.

I know a lot of people like to say that the lack of attention on offense is a smokescreen (“Bubba Crosby is our CF”) but I don’t hear any talk about using Hughes/Aceves as a 5th starter or a non type A free agent option so I’m not sure I see that happening.  If it does happen then I’ll give Cashman as much praise as I’ve been giving him the last 2 or 3 years.  However if he does completely ignore the offense in favor spending all the money on free agent pitching contracts then I will already regret giving him the extension.

NY Post and ESPN reporting CC is going to sign…with us.

The Post is reporting that C.C. has accepted the Yankees’ offer.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/12102008/sports/yankees/yanks_close_in_on_sabathia_deal_143481.htm

Finally, we’re done with the endless “will he, won’t he” stories.

ESPN is running with it now too…

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3759182

MLB.com has it up also, but I only saw it on my RSS feeder. It may be just a link to the Post article, which I think ESPN is doing.

...and there was much rejoicing. Yaaaay.

I wonder if that reported opt-out is being included.

Now ESPN is running it on TV… this seems done.

If they sign C.C. and get smart by going after short term options to round out the rotation like Sheets and Pettitte then the have no type A free agents left.

What makes much more sense is to get C.C., sign Sheets OR Pettitte, round out the rotation with Garland or Byrd type player and then use the final type A slot for offense.

The limit is on the number of type A and type B free agents combined, and re-singing your own free agents doesn’t count against it.  So they can bring Pettitte back no matter what else they do, and singing Garland or Byrd instead of Sheets of Burnett wouldn’t give them an extra FA slot.  They can sign two pitchers plus a bat and still re-sign Pettitte.  I’m still not sure if they get to sign two more type A/Bs if and when Abreu and Rodriguez sign elsewhere.

BTW, if Sabathia really does sign, no one will be happier than Don since he gets six years to spout amateur psycho-babble after every CC start that isn’t a 27-strikeout perfect game.

CC + Swisher = semi decent offseason.  If they can get one more piece, it will qualify as a “very good” offseason.

Can Cashman really be looking for 3 starters? I guess that makes sense, so long as one of them is Pettitte. I wouldn’t mind Sheets and Pettitte, although it seems like it’s going to be Burnett or Lowe and Sheets or Pettitte.

I’m still not sure if they get to sign two more type A/Bs if and when Abreu and Rodriguez sign elsewhere.

I’ve found this:

If there are 14 or fewer Type A or Type B free agents available, no team can sign more than one type A or B player. If there are between 15-38, no team can sign more than two. If there are between 39 and 62, there’s a limit of three. However, teams can sign as many Type A or B free agents as they’ve lost, regardless of the limits above.

and this:

However, each team may sign as many Type A or B free agents as it loses in any particular winter, even if those signings would put it over the quota for that winter.

It *seems* to intimate it is a cumulative effect (e.g. Yanks lose Pudge and Abreu they can sign a total of 5), but it isn’t 100% clear.  You could also read it to be, the “greater of the limit, or number of A/B FA you have lost”.

So now we’re hearing 7/$160M from multiple outlets.  Way to lower that AAV, Cashman! 

This from the MLB.com article:

The deal is for seven years and $160 million, ESPN’s Buster Olney reported. The Post said it is for six years and at least $140 million.

7 years/$160M? Oof.

amateur psycho-babble after every CC start

What, Lombardi doesn’t get paid?

RE:14

Yeah, that’s the same language I’ve been reading, and I’m still hung up on the ambiguity of the last sentence.  So I keep hedging.

Still, I’m fairly confident that bringing back your own free agents doesn’t count against your limit.  And either way, there’s no advantage to signing type Bs instead of type As (except the obvious lower costs and fewer years).

hmmm… and if Teixeira stays in LA, this will be a deeply troubling offseason.

7 years for 160.
It will be interesting to see how the structure the annual value of a deal of this length.
My guess is it will be a more traditional way than the unusual contract A-Rod signed last year.

how they

Girardi Q & A: “Is your role in terms of recruiting guys, trying to convince them to come on board—do you take a different role with each guy?
JOE GIRARDI: As we talk to them and as Brian says, you know, it’s time to talk to them, that’s kind of when I step in. I’ve had a chance to meet with C.C. and I’ve had a chance to meet with Bengie.”

Bengie?

7 years for 160

Wait, is that from the Sabathia story or the auto bailout?

Bengie?

i saw that too and was a little confused, but i assume he meant Sheets.  not Molina.

Still, I’m fairly confident that bringing back your own free agents doesn’t count against your limit.

Yeah, I’m pretty certain of that as well.

And either way, there’s no advantage to signing type Bs instead of type As (except the obvious lower costs and fewer years).

Well, not in terms of if the player hasn’t been offered arbitration, obviously.  However, if they have, there’s the extra advantage of not losing a 1st or (now likely since CC signed) 2nd round draft pick.  I would think that typically the difference in talent between an “A” and “B” is enought that teams don’t consider that.

7 years/$160M? Oof.

I’m hoping that is the total *possible* value of the contract.  E.g. the contract is 6/$135M, with an option for 1/$25M and a $5M buyout or something.

Progress? At $40-$50 million above any other current offer, some progress. The farce continues.

Care to retract?

guys, if we were comfortable with $140M/6, what’s the difference if it’s $160M/7?

yes, i understand that additional year could become a burden.  in 2014. 

just pretend it’s not there. 

this is a great day for Yankee fans.  i think i see blue…he looks GLORIOUS!!!

Sabathia to Cashman: I want GM money!
Cash: Hang on… (uncomfortable pause) ... Done.

So does this contract influence the decision about another starter? Am assuming they’d prefer Sheets over breaking the bank again for Lowe or Burnett?

<i>Care to retract?</i.

Of course he doesn’t, and now you’ve just guaranteed that he’ll post another screed about what a “happy camper” CC will be (compete with that amazingly clever nickname that he probably paid a four year old to come up with).  Better to save yourself a few keystrokes and ignore him.

I’ve taken a Hot Stove sabbatical this year, so I’m coming at this without maximum context and information. 

Tell me fellas, why should I not be concerned about the fact that the Brewers put the guy through the grinder to the tune of 250+ innings last year?

Why will this work out better than Kevin Brown, Mike Hampton, Barry Zito?

Why does Sabathia+Lowe/Burnett ‘08 feel like Pavano+Wright ‘04? 

Assuming we can bring Pettitte, is another big contract for a 2-3 pitcher really necessary at this point?  The idea of paying Derek Lowe $17 million to rehab at the age of 39 makes me want to throw up in my mouth.  Beaucoup Benjamins for John Garland’s 4.90 ERA and 1.51 WHIP (in, I believe, a pitcher’s park)?  That makes the throw-up come out of my mouth.

Sure make a run at Tex, if for no other reason than to keep him out of Fenway.  But that hardly feels like a must-have.  If that happens, does Swisher essentially become the every day CF?  And how does that project defensively?

if we were comfortable with $140M/6, what’s the difference if it’s $160M/7?

Personally, I’m happy to wait until I know what the actual contract is before I freak out over it.  But I guess I’m kind of weird that way.

Why does Sabathia+Lowe/Burnett ‘08 feel like Pavano+Wright ‘04?

Pavano wasn’t a Yankee in ‘04.  You probably mean Vazquez.  And if so, Sabathia > Vazquez.  (or Pavano for that matter)

Why does Sabathia+Lowe/Burnett ‘08 feel like Pavano+Wright ‘04?

Geez, you can’t be serious.  Sabathia + (Pavano + Wright ‘04) would still be a great off-season.  Every signing is a risk, but if you’re looking for another free agent pitcher the Yankees have signed to compare to Sabathia, you might want to start with someone of comparable ability, like maybe Mussina.

Am assuming they’d prefer Sheets over breaking the bank again for Lowe or Burnett

Maybe it lets them make simultaneous offers that are only good until the first guy accepts?

Sure make a run at Tex, if for no other reason than to keep him out of Fenway.

Honestly, I don’t understand how that works. Either you sincerely want to sign the guy and will outbid for him, or you stay out. Can the Yankees bid 8/$200m for Teixeira on the hope that the Sox will go higher? I get how this works in poker, b/c if someone calls your bluff everyone has a good laugh. But the Yankees can’t retract their bid in that situation without an unbelievable loss of face, right? what do I know, but it just doesn’t sound realistic to me.

It’s game on with the Angels and us, though. Which is a good matchup, if 11-1 in the last 12 October matchups is at all relevant.

Wow.  Something happened.

Now, if we can improve the offense/defence, that would be perfect.  I’m honestly quite satisfied with the rotation as it stands, or with Pettitte/Sheets - I want Hughes in the rotation & would happily give IPK another real, extended shot, too.  Swisher & Nady & Gardner/Melky all in the line-up together, though?  Esp. when the team’s already banking on comeback years from Cano & Posada, & on the health of the latter?  No, no & no.

*If the RS really are all in for Texeira, would his value to the NYY not be increased by to the extent that acquiring him would prevent that eventuality?  Or at least to the extent that pursuit would raise the acquisition cost for the RS?*  This has, strangely, been absent from the discussion - perhaps for a good reason I’m not taking into account here.

Sabathia = 2000 Mike Mussina

Obviously they’re different guys, but on a level of seriousness, this feels about right. By comparison, everyone on the planet knew Pavano had one breakout year and a string of injuries already. You can criticize the dollars, but Sabathia is about as sure a bet as you’ll get on the FA market.

Why will this work out better than Kevin Brown, Mike Hampton, Barry Zito?

Just FTR, it’s actually quite unfair to compare Brown to Hampton or Zito (so far).  Kevin pitched very very well for a good chunk of his contract.

Pavano wasn’t a Yankee in ‘04.  You probably mean Vazquez.  And if so, Sabathia > Vazquez.  (or Pavano for that matter)

The ‘08 and ‘04 referred to off-seasons.  Call it ‘08-‘09/‘04-‘05 if you like.  But now that you mention it, Vazquez was something of a shitshow too.  And injury-tainted career notwithstanding, I would’ve liked to see more of Nick Johnson’s chubby frame in pinstripes.  Hell, even Juan Rivera could’ve been a useful part.  Then, cutting our losses after one season, we decided to parlay Vazquez into the Big Eunuch, and that cost us Dioner Navarro, who—let’s face it—would’ve been a better investment than paying Jorge for his gimpy years.

Back to the point, sure CC is “>” than those guys.  How much better?  It’s a mindset of plugging holes by paying free agents for last year’s career performance.  Has the roadbump in the development of Hughes and Kennedy caused us to revert to the mid-aughts philosophy?

Wait - none of that was there when I started writing about the Tex-Fenway stuff!
Sorry.

I don’t understand how that works…

You don’t think that teams ever get in on a free agent just to make it harder on the competition and drive up the price?  You don’t think the Red Sox have ever done this?  I’m sure that Boras would be very happy to have Teixeira meet with Cashman to “discuss parameters” even if it was purely intended to throw a scare into Arte Moreno.  It’s in both parties’ interests to do so.

everyone on the planet knew Pavano had one breakout year and a string of injuries already

And yet three or four teams besides the Yankees were ready to throw gobs of cash at him.  My kid is definitely throwing a bullpen after school today.

As for risky signings, look across town. K-Rod is not a great sign for the Mets, IMHO. Personally I don’t like his stuff and think the Sox worked him over pretty good. Giving up a game-winning homer to JD Drew at home, down 0-1 in the series… he pretty much blew their entire season. In a karmic way he’s a perfect match for the Mets: who better to help twist the knife some more? But as for turning their horror show around, this is not a safe bet.

I’m sure that Boras would be very happy to have Teixeira meet with Cashman to “discuss parameters” even if it was purely intended to throw a scare into Arte Moreno. 

Hm, I see your point. My analysis presumes that agents wouldn’t lie about that “other offer”. Retraction issued.

if we were comfortable with $140M/6, what’s the difference if it’s $160M/7?

Personally, I’m happy to wait until I know what the actual contract is before I freak out over it.  But I guess I’m kind of weird that way.

Good points both.

Honestly, I don’t understand how that works. Either you sincerely want to sign the guy and will outbid for him, or you stay out.

Well, they don’t have to make an offer to drive the price up, right?  They can meet with Boras, or Tex, and have “conversations” about him, and leak that they are “considering offering him more than Boston is”.  At that point Boston can assume they’re bluffing and wait, assume they aren’t bluffing and wait, or assume they aren’t bluffing and put in a larger-offer in the hopes of landing Tex before he starts to think too much about accepting a forthcoming Yankees offer.  I have no idea how well it works, but I’d have to imagine it sometimes works, to some effect.  Whether or not it will in this particular instance…

Sabathia = 2000 Mike Mussina

I think that should be pretty much true.  Honestly, I’d be happy if we got Kevin Brown.  Brown was what, still a great pitcher for 3 of the 5 years he was in LA?  Actually 3.5, since he had a half-year of being great in between.  I think expecting more than that is silly, though you still have to pay for it.

Retraction issued.

Sorry, I got into a conversation and posted my comments before refreshing.

How much better?

Eleventy billion percent.  Seriously, this is the part you are just not considering.  Sabathia is the kind of guy you just go out and get if it only costs you money.  Period.  The philosphy behind this siging is not one of “paying free agents for last year’s career performance.”  It’s one of obtaining truly elite talent when it is available.

Now again, there’s till risk.  There always is with free agents, and especially with pitchers.  But there simply is no comparison between signing Sabathia and signing Pavano or Wright or most of the other pitchers the Yankees have signed or traded for in recent years.

& you’re presuming, SSF, that landing the guy would be an unacceptable outcome.

Sabathia = 2000 Mike Mussina

I guess that sounds about right.  It’s just that the Yankees have a truly awful record when it comes to acquiring pitchers at or approaching their peak, going back to Rick Rhoden and Britt Burns for chrissakes.  But more recently and relevantly (and I’m sure I’m fogetting many stinkbombs): Brown, Wright, Pavano, Vazquez, R. Johnson, Weaver, Karsay, Contreras.  I would argue even that Clemens was a #2 starter for most of his Yankees stint and an HOFer everywhere else

Pete, in the hypothetical they weren’t talking about actually landing him. If the Yankees sincerely want to make a run at Teixeira, obviously succeeding would be a good outcome. Nobody would question the value of the player.

Aight, if you guys say so.  The difference between Vazquez’ 2001-2003 and CC’s 2006-2008, however, is one of degree and not kind.

All the things you’re saying now about having to grab that elite talent when it’s on the market…we said them about Javy 5 years ago.

All the things you’re saying now about having to grab that elite talent when it’s on the market…we said them about Javy 5 years ago.

Yes, but the talent available now is obviously a LOT better than Javy.  There’s the big difference.

Definitely better.  I don’t know about a LOT.  Degree not kind like I said.  And we didn’t have to commit to Vazquez through the next milennium.

You all have probably hashed this out, but isn’t Johan the elephant in the room here?  Wasn’t that the moment to say cost-be-damned?  And I say this as someone who was militantly against the trade.  Of course, we won’t be able to judge the wisdom of that decision until 2013 or so, but based on last year’s performances by Melky and IPK, aren’t we kicking ourselves a little?

No.  Talent PLUS money PLUS length is different.  If you’ve bailed on Hughes, then - sure, but who had bailed on him at the time?

I’ve posted this before but the trashing of Javy needs to stop.  He wasn’t bad and was certainly better than Randy.  He was an All Star in the first half of his one season and was run out of town because mild injury problems cause him to struggle his second half of the season and playoffs.  And we all know once you fail in the playoffs in NY once the idiots come out of the woodwork.

For what it’s worth over the last two seasons…

Javy - 425 IP, 8.75 K/9IP, 3.72 K/BB, 1.03 GB/FB
Johan - 453.3, 8.76 K/9IP, 3.83 K/BB, 1.00 GB/FB

I kinda wish we had Javy these last few season don’t you?

No.  Talent PLUS money PLUS length is different.  If you’ve bailed on Hughes, then - sure, but who had bailed on him at the time?

I understand.  But was actual talent involved?  Like I say, we don’t know for sure, but the early returns aren’t promising.  Besides, I think Hughes is a moot point.  IIRC, IPK+Melky+Horne would’ve gotten it done.

Of course, we won’t be able to judge the wisdom of that decision until 2013 or so, but based on last year’s performances by Melky and IPK, aren’t we kicking ourselves a little?

Hindsight is always 20-20.  But even then, remember it was pretty late in the off-season (end of Jan) when Johan was traded.  So basically right before spring-training you were trading 2/5ths of your rotation, plus your starting CF, for one starting pitcher (IIRC, the last deal the Twins asked for was Hughes+IPK+Melky+more prospects).  So either Igawa would have been starting the year in the rotation AND Matsui in LF, or they would have had to do more trades, with a now depleted farm-system.

<Javy - 425 IP, 8.75 K/9IP, 3.72 K/BB, 1.03 GB/FB
Johan - 453.3, 8.76 K/9IP, 3.83 K/BB, 1.00 GB/FB</i>

That strikes me as some serious cherry-picking.  How do the ERAs and WHIPs look?

I think Hughes + IPK + Melky was last-minute desperation howler by Minnesota.  I don’t know all the machinations, but I believe Cashman walked away earlier in the off-season from IPK/Melky/Horne.

2/5ths of the rotation indeed.  The 2/5ths that had an ERA around 7.00 in the first few months.  The holes could’ve been plugged.  Gardner could’ve played CF and made the pitching that much better with his glove.  Unquestionably we would’ve been in the post-season with as good a chance as any to take it all.

And like I said, I was against the Johan trade.  But it’s hard not to second-guess oneself.  And to wonder if the going balls-to-the-walls on CC is some kind of psychological compensation for whiffing on Johan.  (Cashman saying to himself—or Hank saying to him—“Not gonna make that mistake again.”)

Besides, I think Hughes is a moot point.  IIRC, IPK+Melky+Horne would’ve gotten it done.

Pretty much everything is rumors, but I understand that IPK+Melky+Horne was what the Yankees offered.  Twins said they wanted Hughes instead.  Yankees debated, and finally agreed.  Twins came back and said, “Oh no, we didn’t mean Hughes *instead* of IPK.  We meant in addition to.”  There were also rumors they wanted an additional prospect on top of those four.  At which point, Yankees felt they weren’t serious about dealing Johan to them, and said forget it.

B-man, you’re just flat-out making stuff up now.  For one thing, there is no reason for what you say you recall about getting Santana for Kennedy Cabrera and Horne.  The Twins were apparently insisting on Hughes AND Kennedy AND Cabrera AND more.  Second, Sabathia costs only money (and a draft pick), not money and talent like Vazquez did and like Santana would have.  The difference between giving up a draft pick and giving up established talent, or even a minor leaguer that you’ve already paid a bonus to, is large and should be pretty obvious.  Third, nobody was saying the same things about Vazquez that people are saying about Santana now.  And what the hell is “degree not kind” supposed to mean anyway?  Sabathia is coming off of three straight years of 140 ERA+ or better.  Vazquez’ best single season barely matches one of those.  That’s a significant difference in kind.

I don’t know all the machinations, but I believe Cashman walked away earlier in the off-season from IPK/Melky/Horne.

You’re wrong.  The Twins said that Cabrera and Hughes wasn’t enough.  Cashman offered Kennedy + lesser prospects instead of Hughes.  The Twins kept insisting on Kennedy + Hughes.

2/5ths of the rotation indeed.  The 2/5ths that had an ERA around 7.00 in the first few months.

Again, that’s hindsight.  If they had traded both and the rotation was 1) Johan 2) Wang 3) Pettitte 4) Moose 5) Igawa you would have said it made sense, given that CC would probably be available after the season?

Here is all I found so far, indicating that yes, the Yankees HAD offered Hughes+Melky+something for Johan.  I really should do some work, so I’m going to stop looking.

<i>That strikes me as some serious cherry-picking.  How do the ERAs and WHIPs look? <?i>

HBT just did a writeup on Javier Vazquez.  Seems one of his biggest problems is not leaving enough runners on base, which may or may not be a skill.  But since he has done it several years in a row, might be a skill for him.

The holes could’ve been plugged.  Gardner could’ve played CF and made the pitching that much better with his glove.  Unquestionably we would’ve been in the post-season with as good a chance as any to take it all.

It’s bad enough that this is pure 20/20 hindsight, but it is also just plain delusional.

But it’s hard not to second-guess oneself.  And to wonder if the going balls-to-the-walls on CC is some kind of psychological compensation for whiffing on Johan.  (Cashman saying to himself—or Hank saying to him—“Not gonna make that mistake again.”)

Again, the part you keep missing is that there is no comparison between the Santana and Sabathia situations.  They did not have to give up any prospects at all for Sabathia.  That’s a huge difference.  I think it’s more plausible that they walked away from Santana because they decided it made more sense to scrape by for a year and then go full bore for Sabathia precisely because he would only cost money, rather than money and talent.

That strikes me as some serious cherry-picking.  How do the ERAs and WHIPs look?

ERA and WHIP are products of

1) How many balls you allow to be put in play. (That is why you look at K/9IP)
2) How many people you walk.
3) How many fly balls you let up (there is a fairly consistent ratio of fly balls to HR).

Those are the things a pitcher can control.  Deviations off the expected results from season to season are usually considered luck.  In this case Javy has just been unlucky.

OK, I stand corrected on the various offers and iterations of the Johan trade.  And I’m not saying the situations are perfectly comparable, MC.  But so far at least, the “prospects” or “talent” that distinguish the 2 situations have been fer shit.  I hope as much as anyone that Hughes and Kennedy turn into reliable performers, but that’s looking a lot less promising than it did 12 months ago.

Again, I think Cashman did the right thing.  But I still lie awake at night wishing he had put all his chips in the middle of the table last January.  To not do so, it seems to me, is too adopt a George Bush mindset here: Never mind if there were no WMDs in Iraq…we did what we did with the information we had…LALALALA close my ears I don’t want to hear any second-guessing.

I think it’s more plausible that they walked away from Santana because they decided it made more sense to scrape by for a year and then go full bore for Sabathia precisely because he would only cost money, rather than money and talent.

I hope that wasn’t the thinking.  Because I consider Johan a class above CC.  A HOFer, which I don’t think CC will be.  Johan = Greg Maddux.  CC = Jack McDowell or Bartolo Colon or Roy Oswalt.  In fact, I might argue that Johan-CC > CC-Javy Vazquez.

In this case Javy has just been unlucky.

Again, read the HBT article.  I’m pretty sure he hasn’t “just been” unlucky.  But, I would have rather had Javy+Navarro from 2005 on instead of Johnson+what we got back for him.  I could just see the Boss after the 2004 playoffs though, on Javy: “ship that loser out of here!”

And again, C.C. has been better than Johan over the last two years.  I’ll take C.C. and Hughes over Johan anyday.

I hope that wasn’t the thinking.  Because I consider Johan a class above CC.  A HOFer, which I don’t think CC will be.  Johan = Greg Maddux.  CC = Jack McDowell or Bartolo Colon or Roy Oswalt.  In fact, I might argue that Johan-CC > CC-Javy Vazquez.

Well if that’s the case, then you’re just not very good at evaluating talent.  There’s a huge space between Greg Maddux and Jack McDowell.  For that matter, there’s a huge space between Roy Oswalt and Jack McDowell.  Even if Johan is significantly better than Sabathia over the lives of their respective contracts, the value of what was traded for him will always matter in the comparison.  And the hindsight of “it’s been fer shit so far” is not a fair and objective way to evaluate the difference between having to trade prospects for the privilege of giving someone a huge long-term contract and not having to trade prospects.

the value of what was traded for him will always matter in the comparison

Right, and I can only assess that value based on their major-league performance so far.  I want Hughes and IPK (and Melky too) to succeed as much as you do.  But so far, they really haven’t.  I’d be happy to be wrong.  I believe in taking the long view.  But today, I can’t help but Monday-morning quarterback.  Has anyone run the numbers on what the ‘08 season would’ve looked like with Johan getting the 32 starts that went to Hughes/Kennedy/Ponson?

I dare you to watch sportscenter for 10 minutes today without throwing something at the TV. All they are talking about is how many pitches he has thrown, how he has not won in playoffs, and how this does not make the yankees better than a third place team in the AL east.

F^ck Kruk.

I can only assess that value based on their major-league performance so far

Wrong.  There are two ways to compare the two transactions—one is on the basis of what was known at the time the decisions were made.  The other is retrospective.  But retrospective analysis can only be done when everything is known about how the transactions worked out.  In other words, you can’t do the retrospective analysis for another six or seven years (at least).  You cannot have it both ways, which is precisely what you’re doing if you say that passing on Santana was dumb based on how Kennedy and Hughes pitched last year.  Or are you telling me that if they pitch well this year, or if they get traded for players who make major contributions to a championship, then all of a sudden it becomes smart to have passed on dealing them for Santana?

I dare you to watch sportscenter for 10 minutes today without throwing something at the TV. All they are talking about is how many pitches he has thrown, how he has not won in playoffs, and how this does not make the yankees better than a third place team in the AL east.

Thanks for the tip.  I won’t watch.  Anwyay, this makes the Yankees five or six wins better than they would have been.  If they were an 88 win team on paper yesterday, then they’re a 93-94 win team now.  If that’s third place in the AL East, then there’s not much you can do, except to say that it’s a helluva strong division and try to upgrade by a couple more wins before the season starts.

Oh and listening to kurkjian (who I usually like) and company try to make the case that K-Rod is going to have a bigger impact. Just ridiculous.

200+ IP > 75 IP

Steve Phillips “Sabathia is not going to be any better…He is not going to win 28 games, he is a 19 win pitcher.”

Who was the last pitcher to 28 wins?
Why are they taking so long to sell CC jerseys?

Has anyone run the numbers on what the ‘08 season would’ve looked like with Johan getting the 32 starts that went to Hughes/Kennedy/Ponson?

In addition to MC’s comments…what would it have also looked like in April with Damon in CF and Matsui in LF (remember, at the end of April we were actually talking about how SMART it was to keep Melky because he was playing so well)?  Or then having Gardner in CF in May when injuries started happening (and he clearly wasn’t ready in May)?  Or the pieces we later traded to get needed help like Nady and Pudge (believe it or not, that was still an upgrade, if not much) instead needing to fill a CF hole?

If there were talking about giving up only players in AA or lower, you could possibly do the comparison for 2008 w/ Johan compared to 2008 w/o.  However, even as poorly as they did, you still would have been taking 3 players who were starters in April for the Yankees and replacing them with 1.

Who was the last pitcher to 28 wins?

Umm…McLain?  Just a guess.

So wait, he’s a 19-win pitcher who is replacing Moose who was a 20-game winner.  So by signing CC they’re now a win worse than they were last year?

Why are they taking so long to sell CC jerseys?

What was his number last year?  They’re probably waiting until that is declared, at least…

“So wait, he’s a 19-win pitcher who is replacing Moose who was a 20-game winner.  So by signing CC they’re now a win worse than they were last year?”

According to Kruk, that is 100% accurate.

You cannot have it both ways, which is precisely what you’re doing if you say that passing on Santana was dumb based on how Kennedy and Hughes pitched last year.

I’m not sure you’ve been following what I’m saying.  I don’t think I used the word dumb.  And I did say that we won’t be able to know for sure until 2014 or so.  But I for one can’t help a “What if…” moment.  And I’d be surprised if most of y’all here hadn’t had the same thought.

There are two ways to compare the two transactions—one is on the basis of what was known at the time the decisions were made.  The other is retrospective.  But retrospective analysis can only be done when everything is known about how the transactions worked out.

Can we not judge the success of the Iraq war today, because it may become a democratic Nirvana in 2050?

I did say that we won’t be able to know for sure until 2014 or so.  But I for one can’t help a “What if…” moment.

The problem I’m having with your commentary is that you keep saying things like this without acknowledging that you’re contradicting yourself.  Since we can’t know for sure until 2014, the what if moment doesn’t really merit all that much discussion.  Especially stuff like speculation on “psychological compensation.”

Can we not judge the success of the Iraq war today, because it may become a democratic Nirvana in 2050?

Not even close to comparable.  If it were 2004 or 2014, you might have a point.

Can we not judge the success of the Iraq war today, because it may become a democratic Nirvana in 2050?

Can we judge the success of the Large Haldron (sp) Collider today, when it hasn’t completed a single experiment yet?  It would be a huge failure, since it has had one setback and no success, but 10 years from now it may prove to be the biggest scientific advancement ever.

If in 2017 Phil Hughes is winning his 3rd Cy Young and has clearly been one of the top 2 or 3 pitchers in the game, it will go down as one of the great non-trades in history.

“10 years from now it may prove to be the biggest scientific advancement ever”

and I’ll have to buy a hat to eat.

Fair enough, MC.  I cop to the contradiction, if that’s what you want to call it. 

This is clearly a forum of cold, clear-eyed empiricists (I say that with affection!); me, I’m more of a tormented existentialist.  I think my doubts are entirely human (they told me this thing is going to work out…so far it’s feeling pretty awful…I sure hope they were right because I’ve got a lot riding on its success…)