Why are there 2 Clippard lines?  Are they different confidence levels (e.g., 50% and 65%)?

I gather that Cairo projects Clippard to have been hit really hard if he had stayed in the AL.

Just the Yankee and Washington versions of Clippard’s projections.  Both are the baselines for that respective team/league.

I’m told by Nationals’ fans, incidentally, that it is pronounced, more or less, Alba The Lay Ho.

I think we need to get him a nickname posthaste.

Albaladejo is pronounced more like “Alba La Day Ho.”  As for a nickname, how about “little Britton?”  In any case, I forgot where I read it, but according to those sources, Albaladejo had a great work ethic and solid makeup.  In any event, we shall see.  The Yanks certainly needed a decent bullpen arm more than a medium ceiling right-handed starter at this point.

I’m also quite glad that the odds favor my seeing Hughes in pinstripes again next year.  He’s going to be good as long as he stays healthy.

A minor news item that seems to have gotten completely lost the last few days: Andy Phillips was DFA’d in order to make the Molina signing official. Makes sense, didn’t seem to be much of a role for him.

Speaking of work ethics, Joel Sherman made piece this morning attempted to make the case for trading Hughes/Melky/Kennedy for Santana. He said this of Hughes:

How good is this Yankee package? Hughes is the surest thing, and he has a questionable work ethic and more of an injury history at 21 than Santana at 28. There are many baseball people who like Kennedy more than Hughes, but just as many who think he is a fifth starter.

Really? Questionable work ethic? I’ve only heard tremendous things about his work-ethic and makeup.

Ugh, that should say: Joel Sherman’s piece this morning attempted to make the case for trading…

According to Bill Madden, the Yanks could have had Santana for Hughes, Melky, Marquez and Mitch Hilligoss but Cashman, who never wanted to give up Hughes, convinced Hank that adding Santana’s salary would have been too much.  Madden’s tone reeks of “You better be right about Hughes, Cashman!” sentiment, but I, for one, feel he has done the prudent thing.  Also, it’s not a sure thing that Santana winds up in Boston just yet.

Also, it’s not a sure thing that Santana winds up in Boston just yet.

Yeah, actually Stark was just on, apparently saying he thinks Boston truly was just in the discussion to drive the price up. But if they can get a sweetheart of a deal, and they seemed tantalizingly close, it’d be hard to step back from it. I’d think they can afford to pay him and even rework Beckett’s deal. They’re printing money on Yawkey Way.

Just the Yankee and Washington versions of Clippard’s projections
Oops, I totally missed the big “AL” and “NL” in the table. Sorry.

Really? Questionable work ethic? I’ve only heard tremendous things about his work-ethic and makeup.

Yeah, I saw that article too.  I think the only way Sherman could make the case for trading Hughes is to question is work-ethic.  Irresponsible reporting, because now more irresponsible reports may pick up on that, and it is possible Hughes will be stuck with a “poor work ethic” label for a while.  I sure hope not.

Really? Questionable work ethic? I’ve only heard tremendous things about his work-ethic and makeup.

agreed, this is nothing but unadulterated bullcrap.

According to Bill Madden, the Yanks could have had Santana for Hughes, Melky, Marquez and Mitch Hilligoss but Cashman, who never wanted to give up Hughes, convinced Hank that adding Santana’s salary would have been too much.

i don’t buy that they could have had Santna for that package.  the yankees left their Hughes offer on the table for 3 days and the Twins never accepted.  i find it hard to believe that during the 3 days that Hughes was on the table, that Marquez and Hilligloss would have held anything up.

my guess is that the Twins thought they could get Horne, Jackson, or Kennedy added.

i think Madden has it backwards.  that package was probably the Yankees’ final offer, which the Twins never seemed all that high on.

By the by, if Cashman believes the Yanks are just about full up salary-wise, I suppose this means he won’t dip into the free agent market this winter.  Another interesting aspect of the Madden piece was the claim that Pettitte’s return, at $16 million, actually made Santana less attractive given his salary demands.

Didn’t Hughes buy a place in Tampa so he could be near the Yanks’ complex during the off season?  That’s certainly not the sort of thing guys with a “poor work ethic” do.  In fact, it would appear that Bill Madden is the one suffering from a poor work ethic in mussing up things that even common fans known to be true.

George,

I’m glad that you brought up the Sherman article; I was going to bring it up.  As you say, Sherman was trying to make the case for a Santana deal.  It was cute—sort of like a child showing off his knowledge of multiplication tables.  And then, boom, came that amazing hacktastic moment.  Sherman makes a startling claim about Hughes’ work ethic and treats it as if this claim is nothing new.  He doesn’t, of course, cite any source or evidence.  (Probably his “evidence” is that some acquaintance of his thought that Hughes took too long to come back from his injury last year.)

Any respect for I once had for Sherman has gone out the window (his book on the 1996 Yankees is decent) with this claim that would constitute libel if Hughes weren’t a public figure.

Guys with poor work ethic put on 50 lbs. in three years, despite being paid millions as a pro athlete - like Miguel Cabrera.  Somehow, I think Joel Sherman would not be questioning Cabrera’s work ethic if the Yanks had traded for him.

Is the difference between replacement level and average over 66 innings for a reliever really only 3 runs?  That seems pretty small, but I guess its about a .4 difference in ERA. 

Also, I think the one good thing about putting Hughes on the table for the Santana trade was that it was sort of a win-win in terms of justification.  If they got Santana, we could all lament losing Hughes, but you’re still getting Santana as a consolation.  But by not getting Santana, it’s almost like we’re picking UP Hughes, because most people were already in stage three of rationalizing it.  It’s a good feeling.  But if it was just the Kennedy package, I think there would be more bad feelings about not getting Santana.

And then, boom, came that amazing hacktastic moment.

Hack is right. Sherman makes two huge mistakes in that article. 

A) He assumes Santana to the Red Sox for an inferior package is fate accompli which radically alters the perspective you’d have on the Yankees not making the trade
B) He develops selective amnesia and suddenly forgets his column from two days before. In that article he assails the Yankee free-spending ways and derisively notes that everytime they say they’re committed to getting younger and growing from within, they actually get older (in this instance by resigning A-Rod, Posada and Rivera, who just so happen to still be at or near the top of their game). Here’s a quick excerpt from his Dec. 3rd piece:

These are the Yankees, they know only one way: Throw their wallet at a problem and, if the problem persists, find another wallet…Hank Steinbrenner has taken the baton from his father, George, in every way. When in doubt, play Moneyball.

Two days later, when a decision is made that keeps the Yankees younger, cheaper and more flexible (not trading for Santana) he rakes Cashman over the coals. What an asshat.

According to Bill Madden, the Yanks could have had Santana for Hughes, Melky, Marquez and Mitch Hilligoss but Cashman, who never wanted to give up Hughes, convinced Hank that adding Santana’s salary would have been too much.

If it’s accurate…love it.  In Cash we trust. 

And I suspect that the longer the Sox-Twins negotiation stretches on, the less likely there will be a Sanatana deal.

I wish someone would start a blog, or another page on this blog, to FJM-ize NYC columnists.  Each contributor could be assigned a different newspaper or writer.  I myself would volunteer to shred each Murray Chass piece.

Is the difference between replacement level and average over 66 innings for a reliever really only 3 runs?  That seems pretty small, but I guess its about a .4 difference in ERA.

I set replacement level at 1.2 times a league average ERA for starters and 1.1 times a league average ERA for relievers, but I think I need to make the reliever replacment level a little worse, maybe 1.15 or something.  That’s stil just 4 runs instead of 3.

By the by, if Cashman believes the Yanks are just about full up salary-wise, I suppose this means he won’t dip into the free agent market this winter

I can guarantee you he won’t sign any (more) 20+ million dollar deals this year

Yeah, I think he’ll still dip into the market, but unless a trade is made that removes a player on the ML roster, where is there a position of need?  Maybe 1B, and the bullpen.  1B I think pretty much everyone here agrees that there isn’t much available that would really be an upgrade.  And for the bullpen, he’s already passed on several relievers (reportedly) because they are asking for too much.  I really wouldn’t be too dismayed if the roster for next year is pretty much already set, with of course a few open spots to be won in ST.

but I think I need to make the reliever replacment level a little worse, maybe 1.15 or something

Would there be any value in splitting closers apart from the rest of the relief pitchers when determining replacement level?  It seems to me (w/o checking stats to back it up), that there are closers, and everyone else.  The few relievers that stand out who aren’t closers probably will be soon.  Most of the rest of the bullpen seems to be basically replacement-level anyway…

Interesting idea Mike K, and probably worth investigating.

I like your idea, Froggy.  I’ll volunteer to excoriate Ian O’Connor, the fool who claimed Cashman was throwing in the towel by not trading IPK and Melky for Eric Gagne.

Ugh, I hate Bob Klapich. I’d gladly take him.

Joel Sherman really is an idiot.

As for a nickname, how about “little Britton?”

6’5” 250—he ain’t a “little” anything.

Madden’s crap makes no sense on any level—Pettitte is a one year commitment; any Santana extension doesn’t start paying out until 2009.  In 2009, the Yanks are shedding about $70M in payroll and moving into a new stadium that will simultaneously increase revenue and decrease revenue sharing obligations.  Meanwhile, the luxury tax threshold increases by $7M a year.  It’s conceivable that they could pay Santana $25M per starting in 2009 and be under the tax limit.  The only part of that story that may be at all accurate is that Cashman never really wanted to trade Hughes, and he found a way to change Hank’s mind.

Anyway, Keith Law says that the Twins are reaching out to the Mets, Angels and Dodgers.  Apparently not so crazy about those Boston packages after all.  Gammons says Santana may not be traded now.  Not sure exactly what “now” means in this context.  And no word from j on how his “imminent vibe” is coming along.

Ooops, forgot the smiley winky thingy.

Ooops, forgot the smiley winky thingy. wink

Hey I’m actually glad the imminent vibe was wrong.  I didn’t want to give up Hughes.

if we are not going to get santana or another starter can we PLEASE get in some conversations for relief pitching. You guys remember the bullpen right? that thing that used to be a strength for the yankees but has doomed us recently. I am not really sure why we didnt make pitches to cordero (the good one), percival, and riske. I hear we are interested in mahay…i guess thats a start.

farnsworth in the 8th = imminent disaster (and a 1.7 WHIP)

Starting pitching has doomed the Yanks far more than the bullpen.  After all, how many games did the team lose after leading in the late innings?  There were plenty of scares, obviously, but I doubt the bullpen cost the team more than 3-4 games.  Awful starting pitching, on the other hand, had a much larger impact.  Also, I’m not sure how much the Yanks actually can do about the bullpen.  Guys like Nathan or Huston Street won’t come cheap.  In fact, I like Cashman’s approach of collecting a fairly large group of relievers (i.e. Veras, Ohlendorf, Albaladejo, Britton, Patterson, Edwar etc.) bringing them to spring training and letting Girardi see if he has anything.  Also, the Yanks can perhaps get some help from guys like Robertson or Whelan mid-season.  Moreover, there’s always the possibility that a starter in the system can be converted, although Horne doesn’t seem to be a great candidate for that given his mechanical problems in the early innings.

I am not really sure why we didnt make pitches to cordero (the good one), percival, and riske.

how do you know they didn’t? 

i think they did make a pitch to percival.

not cordero though. he signed for $46M/4.  please, if the yankees did that they’d be morons.

For some reason I think Girardi plus a bunch of talented arms in the minors means the bullpen has the potential to be pretty good without signing a bunch of proven veterans.

Hey I’m actually glad the imminent vibe was wrong.

Well, fine.  But the vibe was one of Buster Olney’s key unnamed sources.  There’s a huge information vacuum now.

As for the bullpen, one of the best ways to improve your relief pitching is to get more high quality innings out of your starters.

“but I doubt the bullpen cost the team more than 3-4 games”

You must be kidding. the bullpen lost andy pettitte 3-4 games in the first 6 weeks of the season.
I am not saying those specific guys are the answer. I am saying that a dozen pitchers in there early 20s is probably not going to yield a championship bullpen.

Last season it was amazing how much better the bullpen got after the starters were consistently going more than 4-5 innings.  The exact opposite happened to Boston after their starters stopped pitching 7-8 innings a game.  I think the improved chance that a Yankee starter can go more than 4 innings without getting shelled will also contribute to a better bullpen.

One of the games you’re referring to is the 2nd game of the season. I was there. It was snowing in Yankee Stadium and Pettitte left with the lead, to be sure. But he left at the end of the 4th inning. So IE’s point still stands - more innings out of your starters.

Another game the bullpen “blew” the lead for Pettitte in April was the 5-4 loss to Oakland out west. You may remember Mo surrending a 3-R HR to Mark Ellis. Care to replace Mo?

RE Santana…

Ahhhhh, ya gotta love the Red Sox and all the media who “play ball” with them.

It appears obvious - at least to me - that the Twinkies were using the Sox to try to get the Bombers to give away more than they should to get Santana. It looks like Hank and Co. are not falling for the bait. The Yankee brass gets it now. They will not be used ala Greg Maddox to drive up a contract or play the “No, really, *Boston* is going to sign him”. You don’t want that! You gotta give us more players” game.

Everyone in the media continues to fail to grasp that Santana has a NTC. Though they are one of the “big money” cities, Boston does not have the $$$ to sign him. They have too much out on guys like Dice and Drew and Lugo. That’s why it’s been quiet in beantown lately… (BTW, does anybody really believe that the trade gets done and THEN the team and Santana’s agent get together in 72 hours?) And, please spare me the tampering talks…

So, now the Twins are going to the next tier of teams that can “afford” Santana. It would not surprise me in the least if they come crawling back to NY for the deal that is now on the table.

Also, off-topic, what the F is up with the Marlins? If they were owned by Charlie Finley, these deals would not be allowed to take place. Can’t Selig invoke the not-in-the-best-interest-of baseball clause? Their highest paid player makes @ $500K. Why even put a frachise there? This is where i agree with Bob Costas’s plan to institute a salary cap as well as a salary floor forcing teams to pay a minimum. Otherwise, the FL owner gets to reel in the dough from the revenue sharing from doing basically nothing.

It seems like the mainstream media is going way the hell out of its way to create some sort of “Hank Steinbrenner is an idiot” storyline, except that Hank doesn’t really seem like an idiot.  Sometimes they try to make it about “The short-sighted, free-spending ways are back!”, and then the Yankees hold the line and don’t give up the farm in a Santana trade, so that storyline doesn’t work.  So then it’s “They blew their chance to get Santana!” 

Or it’s “Hank has usurped Cashman’s power!” and then today it’s all about how Cashman talked Hank out of the Santana deal.

As of right now, I think the Yankees have properly called the Twins/Red Sox’ bluff.  I think both the Twins and Red Sox are just in it to drive up the Yankees’ price.  If Johan goes back to the Twins, I’d consider that a coup for Hank/Cashman.

Another of Pettitte’s leads the bullpen “blew” was against Boston in May, when Mariano’s command was lacking and even Coco Crisp smacked him around.  In other words, even a good bullpen is going to give up leads sometimes.  Also, bullpen talent is so volatile that one never really knows going into the season who is going to pan out and who will fail miserably.  After all, there’s no way Boston could have thought Okajima would be lights out for most of the season after having a slightly above average career in Japan.

My recollection is that in the second half of the season, the bullpen was extremely solid with leads.  I think they went about 10 weeks without losing a game when the starter left with a lead.  It was between the fiasco with the Giants in SF in late May or early June and a September start by Ian Kennedy.

On the other hand, they weren’t very good in tie games or close games when they trailed.  Those two Sean Henn HRs in a week were both games that had been tied. 

I think the disparity had something to do with Torre’s dogmatic approach to bullpen use:  Use your best pitchers with a lead, no matter how large.  Use your worst pitchers the rest of the time, even if its tied or close.

It seems like the mainstream media is going way the hell out of its way to create some sort of “Hank Steinbrenner is an idiot” storyline, except that Hank doesn’t really seem like an idiot.

agreed.

people in the media desperately WANT him to be George II and they WANT the Bronx Zoo back.  it sells papers and it’s very easy to write those stories.

And by the way, that 3 run HR against Oakland was to Marco Scutaro on a two strike count.  I remember my jaw completely dropping as John Sterling described the ball sailing over the wall.

a blown lead is a blown lead. you can argue its not a good stat but you cant argue that they didnt happen last year and directly resulted in one in the L column. And actually yes at one point this offseason i would have been cool with replacing mo. He keeps bending further and further each year. Will he break this year? Hopefully not.

Yes starting pitching length makes the pen better but with a rotation of ATLEAST 2 rookies how sure are we to be getting those innings. Will they let the kids pitch? I hope so.

New York’s mainstream media thus has an even shoddier work ethic than Phil Hughes.  Imagine that.

by your rationale a 3 run homer on a 2 strike count doesnt count. I remember the sting too…and it definitely counted

He develops selective amnesia and suddenly forgets his column from two days before. In that article he assails the Yankee free-spending ways and derisively notes that everytime they say they’re committed to getting younger and growing from within, they actually get older (in this instance by resigning A-Rod, Posada and Rivera, who just so happen to still be at or near the top of their game). Here’s a quick excerpt from his Dec. 3rd piece:

This is why I prefer blogs. Writers almost universally get off on making predictions out of their ass and completely forgetting how wrong they were. Word to the MSM: I can do that. And I can go to a website where at least people will (usually) bother to look shit up first.

My take on Santana: maybe Smith is completely paralyzed by his job. He doesn’t seem to be returning calls. Is he even still alive, or is this like when Brezhnev died and nobody would admit it for weeks? Seriously, the Twins don’t seem to be doing anything, it’s all just happening to them.

Another possibililty: Smith has Kenny Williams disease. Remember when Williams announced last July he was trading the utterly mediocre Mark Buehrle and wouldn’t settle for less than your top 10 prospects? There was a spate of articles about how Williams was so dogged, he was sure to get his price. Within a week he gave Buehrle a face-saving extension after all of baseball ignored his stupid demands. Word to Smith: the Jedi mind trick is fiction.

Their highest paid player makes @ $500K.

Oh, come on.  They have at least one player who stands to make almost the MLB average in arbitration.

But seriously, their payroll might wind up at less than $10M.  They probably have close to $90M in guaranteed revenue.  I’m not sure that forcing them to shell out $50M in bad contracts would help matters, but if they won’t even try to keep a guy like Cabrera, I don’t know.  Maybe they should just have free admission— they’ll still turn a nice profit, and we won’t have to watch opposing players’ HRs land among the empty seats every night on SportsCenter.

Gammons says Santana may not be traded now.

It may be that this is turning out as well as it possibly could’ve.

dcristal I’m with you on the pen.  This is the unfinished Hot Stove business assuming (safely) the dust has settled and the Yanks aren’t getting Johan, Haren or Bedard.

Starting pitching has doomed the Yanks far more than the bullpen. 

If you say so.  Point is, the rotation is now set—6 deep, somewhat unseasoned but a world of potential.  The pen has lost its 2nd best contributor, so let’s be creative about what could be done.

I find Mahay truly uninspiring especially given that LOOGYs are overvalued in the marketplace and he could get a 3-year deal.  Feels to me like Mike Myers redux.  I say Eddie Guardado’s the man; coming off injury, 1 year with incentives may get it done.  Until getting hurt, he had 4 consecutive years of sub-3.00 ERA as Seattle’s closer. 

Percival woulda been nice.  My guess is he’s available in July.

Fuentes would be a great pickup, though Colorado is now saying they won’t trade him.

Could we kick the tires on old friend Dotel?

I tell you what doesn’t feel like an imperative—giving Vizcaino 3 years to come back.  Shockingly, his numbers weren’t that much better than Farnsworth—ERA was about half a run better but WHIPs were the same and peripherals favor Farns.  Would you give Farns a 2-year extension?  Of course not, it’s virtually unanimous that he should be ridden out of town on a rail.

Street and Nathan are kind of apples and oranges, IE.  24 year old 3 years from free agency, versus 33 y.o. in his walk year. 

Nathan is a much more realistic target, though he’s probably not going anywhere if Santana stays.  Plus he’d probably be a 1-year rental since he’ll want to close in ‘09.  Still, I think I’d do IPK and Marquez.  In the real world, that’s a good offer.  In Bill Smith’s circus of fantasies…I dunno.

One last thing, then I’ll shut up: among the things the Sox and Yanks have in common is an organizational principle. Maybe not the same one, but they both know how they want to construct their team, they know they’re dealing from a position of strength, and they seem to both be able to tell good risk from bad. Neither of these teams is going to be hornswaggled into a panic deal… because whether one is better than the other, they know they’re BOTH about 80% sure of a playoff spot.

“He keeps bending further and further each year.”

Really?

Mo’s ERA +

01 191
02 161
03 261
04 231
05 307
06 251
07 142
Career: 194

Last year he was off, sure, but other than that he’s been remarkably consistent, and consistently excellent, as much in recent years as ever.  You can give as much weight as you want to last season but you can’t say there has been a pattern of decline.

They have too much {money} out on guys like Dice and Drew and Lugo. That’s why it’s been quiet in beantown lately

I think they can afford Santana, but there are many considerations at play, not the least of which being how you explain to Beckett that he’s only going to make half of what Johan will. And another reason things are relatively quiet up there is because the team, as presently constructed, is really freakin good.

by your rationale a 3 run homer on a 2 strike count doesnt count. I remember the sting too…and it definitely counted

No, I understand, as IE probably does, that they call count. But all these blown leads aren’t simply due to a crappy bullpen. Mo is not crappy, and he’s not replaceable, particularly with what’s available on the market.

I agree the bullpen needs upgrading, which is why it’s heartening to hear that the Yankees are talking to Pittsburgh about Demaso Marte. But every bullpen option seems to come with warts. Martay walks a lot of guys. So really, in the current baseball climate, what’s a better option than trying to add a lot of power arms and hope some of them stick.

B-Man

“If you say so.  Point is, the rotation is now set—6 deep, somewhat unseasoned but a world of potential.  The pen has lost its 2nd best contributor, so let’s be creative about what could be done. “

Am i missing something? Who is this mystery 2nd best contributor??? did someone sign elsewhere that i havent heard of?

Joba to the rotation.

He means Joba…

By the way, SSF, you deserve kudos for using the word “hornswaggled.”

But seriously, their payroll might wind up at less than $10M.  They probably have close to $90M in guaranteed revenue.  I’m not sure that forcing them to shell out $50M in bad contracts would help matters, but if they won’t even try to keep a guy like Cabrera, I don’t know.  Maybe they should just have free admission— they’ll still turn a nice profit, and we won’t have to watch opposing players’ HRs land among the empty seats every night on SportsCenter.

I’d just like to point out this exactly why most MLB teams would oppose a salary cap.  Because if you have a salary cap then you have to have a salary floor and the Marlins wouldn’t be able to get away with this shit.  So the Yankees would be pissed that they can’t spend $200MM anymore, and the Marlins would be pissed that they now have to spend a minimum of $70MM or something.  Basically, whether you’re an extravagant spender or a tightwad, no salary cap is in your best interests.

~~Maybe they should just have free admission

Good one MC…

Didn’t the D-Rays try the equivalent of that this year when they played in a minor league park and *still* couldn’t fill the place?

Nathan is a much more realistic target, though he’s probably not going anywhere if Santana stays.  Plus he’d probably be a 1-year rental since he’ll want to close in ‘09.  Still, I think I’d do IPK and Marquez.

I wouldn’t engage Minnesota in any more trade talks.  I don’t think they are negotiating with the Yankees in good faith.  I sure as hell wouldn’t give them IPK for a year of Nathan.

not the least of which being how you explain to Beckett that he’s only going to make half of what Johan will.

pretty easily.  “Josh, you make half of what Johan does.  We’ll talk about it in 3 seasons when you can actually do something about it.  Until then, shut your piehole”.

sorry for the snark, this is not aimed at you.  you are just saying it might cause PR issues, which is understandable. 

but what i keep hearing is that the Sox would have to RE-DO Beckett’s contract if they got Johan.  i keep reading this all over the place, and i am not sure where it is coming from.  does Beckett suddenly get a do-over on a contract he willingly signed while he was having an awful season?

Gammons keeps promoting this angle and i don’t get it.  this isn’t football.  contracts are contracts.  you can’t “hold-out”.

Beckett won’t hold out, but he might be offended. I think the notion is pure speculation that the Sox will have trouble keeping the peace if they overpay Santana after getting ridiculous hometown discounts on a number of recent extensions. But it’s 100% speculation by writers… even if I think they may be right.

Still, I think I’d do IPK and Marquez

For Nathan? No way. For Street, possibly, but I think I’d take 200 IP of IPK over 60 from HS. And you lose Marquez as well.

As for the bullpen, I am optimistic. Before all of this ARod and then Santana talk all day every day, I added up the innings we got from starts not named Pettite, Wang, or Mussina.  It’s significant. If you replace it with Hughes, Chamberlain and IPK at around a 4.25 ERA (which I think is conservatively high), the bullpen stands to benefit greatly from not being bent to the point of breaking.

Marte is a good option. His BB/9 looks really volatile, but it seems to be working for him because of a nice K/9.  Mix in the fact that he was once a Yankees prospect, and maybe Eiland is saying that Marte’s BB/9 should not hold up a deal. Seems like a DeSalvo is something to give up in return.

Last year he was off, sure, but other than that he’s been remarkably consistent, and consistently excellent, as much in recent years as ever.  You can give as much weight as you want to last season but you can’t say there has been a pattern of decline.

Sort of like Johan Santana?

Anyway, I’d be far more worried that Mariano’s decline is real, until we see otherwise.

<i>I sure as hell wouldn’t give them IPK for a year of Nathan. <i>

Amen!

Well, that should have been in quotations. And I meant to use the preview button. </i>

I hope we don’t have to keep going through this Santana stuff every day. Here’s how I size it up:

The Yankees win if (in this order):
(1) They get Santana centered around IPK and not more than 3 players (the point being not to unload the farm system, even the ‘depth’ guys)
(2) No one gets Santana and he becomes a FA after 08
(3) Boston gets him at too high of a price (Ellsbury and Lester/Buchholz and +)

Boston wins if:
(1) They get the Yanks to pony up more then they were willing too (I thought this was the case when Hughes got thrown out there, and I’m glad it didn’t go through)
(2) The Yankees call the Sox bluff and they’re not bluffing and the Twins trade him for a less than IPK+ package to Boston

Minnesota wins if:
(1) Sox or Yanks bid the other into too high of a package for Santana

There’s also the chance Santana goes to a 3rd team, in which case, I’m not sure who wins, probably no one.

I’m curious, do baseball writers know they’re getting used to spread disinformation and stances, and just go along with it because it helps sell papers/clicks?  Or are they unwitting accomplices?  How can you tell?

Beckett won’t hold out, but he might be offended.

that’s true, he might, because he doesn’t strike me as very smart.

if he were smart, he would realize that the Red Sox were bearing most of the risk when they gave him his very generous extension during his 2006 season and therefore they should be able to reap the reward. 

the only person i could see with a legitimate case is Ortiz.

Beckett sucked last year.  he took the guaranteed money.  good for him, but that was his decision.  if he goes back to sucking next year or gets injured, can the Sox cut his money in half?  of course not.

Beckett did not give a “hometown discount”.  he gave a “holy crap, i am sucking in the American League so i better lock up a big extension” discount.

Baseball writers most likely decide for themselves which of the many rumors swirling around fit their own personal biases or agendas the best and then use them to press their point.

I’m curious, do baseball writers know they’re getting used to spread disinformation and stances, and just go along with it because it helps sell papers/clicks?  Or are they unwitting accomplices?  How can you tell?

Good question. I think it’s usually hard to tell, but not always. Last night the Boston Globe’s Sox blog—where they dump their quick updates—carried a piece that reflected on Theo’s deep love of his prospects, reluctance to part, thinks it will be fun to watch them grow at home, etc. This was such a blatant plant by the Sox, who are in part owned by the NYT, who owns the Globe. Usually the chain of command isn’t so obvious.

Beckett sucked last year.  he took the guaranteed money.  good for him, but that was his decision.  if he goes back to sucking next year or gets injured, can the Sox cut his money in half?  of course not.

Beckett did not give a “hometown discount”.  he gave a “holy crap, i am sucking in the American League so i better lock up a big extension” discount.

This is a Yankee blog, where the Sox’ players/prospects are always scrutinized more harshly than their pinstripe counterparts. That’s your right, and although I reserve the right to argue back, I don’t want to become boring and obnoxious. If you want to lump 2006 Beckett in with the Victor Martinez’s of the world, that’s your right.

NO! No! No!  I meant Victor Zambrano, not Martinez… you’d think I’d have had a quality cup of coffee by now.

RedSox affiliation is why I cancelled my NYT subscription…that and Paul Krugman.

There are biases in all journalism: arts, entertainment, sports, and politics.  Sports journalists are just the stupidest of the bunch I reckon.

I miss 2006 Becket.

If you want to lump 2006 Beckett in with the Victor Martinez’s of the world, that’s your right.

i have no idea what this means.

are you denying that beckett signed an extension while his value was at it’s absolute lowest?

i wasn’t even aware that this was even controversial.

i don’t get it.  before last season he had never thrown more than 178 innings in a season.  he had an ERA+ around 117, he was a very talented but also injury prone pitcher.  his adjustment to the AL was not going well. 

he got a VERY fair contract for what he had accomplished up to that point. 

he had the choice to wait until free agency, at which point he would have cashed in.  but he was also risking injuries or another season of mediocrity.

it was a fair contract at the time and i don’t get the outcry for the Sox to do something about it.

NO! No! No!  I meant Victor Zambrano, not Martinez… you’d think I’d have had a quality cup of coffee by now.

that makes a little more sense. 

and i am not sure what the argument is, i am actually DEFENDING the red sox here.

the target of my criticism is the media.

Yup: yup!
But Ortiz, Schilling, Reyes, and Wright contracts are either examples of bad agents or hometown discount.

Speaking of bullpen help, the D-backs are supposedly shopping Valverde.  No idea what it would take to get him.  A Brewers’ blog says “a starting pitcher ... and probably a very good one.”  Capuano wasn’t it.

Is he worth IPK?  Wang?

But Ortiz, Schilling, Reyes, and Wright contracts are either examples of bad agents or hometown discount.

Ortiz, yes.  Schilling, maybe.

Reyes and Wright? no.

Reyes and Wright were not even arbitration eligible when they signed their contracts.  they traded a little cash for the Mets to assume the injury risk.

they were not free agents.

it’s apples and oranges.

I am saying that a dozen pitchers in there early 20s is probably not going to yield a championship bullpen.

Well, a lot of those “dozen pitchers” are actually in their mid-20’s.  And wasn’t that how the 96-2000 Yankees won a lot of world-series?  I don’t think anyone here is saying the team doesn’t need to upgrade the bullpen.  It’s just that there isn’t a lot out there that makes sense pursuing.  I’d be willing to do IPK/something for Street, because in addition to him being a great setup man he could also project to be Mo’s replacement in a few years (Street’s contract status anyone?).  I wouldn’t do that for Nathan.

I’m sure Cashman isn’t sitting on his hands.  I’d still imagine the Yanks acquire one veteran, “proven” reliever before the off-season is over.  It just may not happen until January.

Let me get this straight, you would trade Wang, who, for all his wrinkles, is among the 15 most valuable starters in the AL, who has thrown over 200 innings over the past two years on a rotation that may well include three rookies, oh, and who’s also cheap to boot, for a reliever?  Would the Jays trade Halladay for Papelbon?  Let’s be clear, Wang may not be a true “no. 1 starter” but he is VERY, VERY valuable.  If Cashman traded Wang for Valverde he would deserve to be fired.

are you denying that beckett signed an extension while his value was at it’s absolute lowest?

Yes, I certainly am. Beckett signed his extension on July 18, 2006. On July 19, he threw a 1-0 shutout (well, 8 IP) which improved his record to 12-5 with a 4.78 ERA. From that point on he went 4-6 with a slightly worse ERA.

Moreover, he may have signed on that day, but do you think the Sox started talking extension on July 17? More likely they were talking in April and May and June, well before his numbers went downhill.

Finally, I don’t think anyone involved with the transaction was taking advantage of his short-term results. I think it was calculated based on his age, injury history, contract status, and previous 700 innings of work which said a lot about who he *could* be, regardless of who he was in the previous month or so. The Sox bought up a couple arbitration years (IIRC) at a price that was only depressed by his history of missing starts.

Ortiz, yes.  Schilling, maybe.

Basically agreed, though you could argue Ortiz’ price is depressed by his being a full time DH. Schilling clearly took less, but I grew up a mile from where he lives, he and his family have something resembling a compound behind my former church (bought at a beeeg discount from Drew Bledsoe!). His wife has a store on main st. that sells knit stuff w/ profits to ALS charities. The kids have switched to local schools. Dunno if I’d make the same choice (it’s a really boring town) but I can see why he did.

I agree with j’s well-thought sizing up of the Santana situation in post #67.

I don’t think Valverde is worth a starting pitcher.  It would be nice to add a top reliever, but I don’t think it’s an imperative.  I’m optimistic that the Girardi-Cashman combo can be more open-minded and creative in finding in-house solutions.  If the bullpen is a complete disaster, the Yankees can address it at the trading deadline.

SeattleSoxFan:

Not sure why you’re so up in arms over yup’s comments about Beckett.  I don’t think yup was trying to trash Beckett or the extension.  Like yup said, he was trying to DEFEND the Sox against the media’s assertion that acquiring Santana would mess up the Sox clubhouse.  I’m not sure where you’re coming from.  Do you want the Sox to rip up Beckett’s contract?

IE,

First of all, you may have noticed the squigly things after those names in my post.  They’re called question marks.  Sometimes a question really is just a question.  Second, Wang is arbitration eligible.  Coming off back-to-back 19 win seasons, his cheap days are over.  Third, I’ve got nothing against the Wang-ster, but he ain’t no Halliday.

Excellent questions DaPuj!

I guess it depends how many books you’ve written.

Yup and j, i agree completely…

RedSox affiliation is why I cancelled my NYT subscription…that and Paul Krugman.

PK is a douche.  He’s reason enough to use the times as puppy training material.

Talk of Santana ruining chemistry for the Sox is weak.  They’d be better than fine.  But I’m starting to have my doubts it will happen.  Theo cherishes his prospects and I really think, despite how much the Twins value the minor leaguers offered, they will want more than what the Sox have offered.

I’d say its almost an even bet at this point that Santana remains in Minn.

And my last name isn’t Albaladejo, for the record.
Although I wish it was…..

Wang is indeed arbitration eligible, but the Yanks will still get him for less than he could command on the open market.  As for Halliday, I was merely making the point that one would never, ever trade one of baseball’s best starters, i.e. Halladay, for one of baseball’s best relievers, i.e. Papelbon.  Moreover, given the youth of the Yanks’ staff, the 220 innings Wang will provide next year will be even more valuable than usual and certainly trump the 70 frames Valverde would provide.  Also, Wang consistently pitches deep into games.  To put it clearer perspective, Wang was as valuable to the Yanks as Pettitte last season (more or less).  Would you trade Pettitte for Valverde?

If PK is a douche what are John Podhoretz or William Krystal?

Would you trade Pettitte for Valverde?

If I needed to save $16M, sure.  But that’s silly since it’s obviously not what anyone trading a Valverde is going to be looking for.

Let’s try this again: the scuttlebutt is that the D-backs want to trade Valverde for a starter, because they have bullpen depth but lack SP depth.  It doesn’t seem to me that they’re looking for a SP prospect; they want someone for their 2008 rotation.  So just how good (or bad) a SP would you trade for a 27 year old reliever with some injury concerns, but two excellent seasons in the past three?

Back to baseball enough politics and Red Sox fans at work.  I find it hard to believe that the Yankees would negotiate with the Twinkies but then turn down the package Madden claims Minnie put on the table.  I think Madden was just blowing smoke.

How does this sound…Pavano+Igawa for Valverde…that solves there problem of lack of starting pitching….

The idea of Igawa batting in the NL made me chuckle.  I think he got one AB last season if I can recall…

I’m glad Pags lives a life of such ideological purity.  It must be fun to weigh every decision based on whether each alternative has more or less of a connection to the Red Sox!

Relievers are far less valuable than starters.  After all, they pitch one-third the amount of innings.  Expecting to trade even a very good reliever with a decent track record like Valverde for a quality starter is unrealistic.  Moreover, the Yanks already have a closer so essentially they’re looking for a reliable set-up man.  In that sense, I would consider trading Horne or Marquez for Valverde but even a deal such as that would require some thought.

Not sure why you’re so up in arms over yup’s comments about Beckett.  I don’t think yup was trying to trash Beckett or the extension.  Like yup said, he was trying to DEFEND the Sox against the media’s assertion that acquiring Santana would mess up the Sox clubhouse.  I’m not sure where you’re coming from.  Do you want the Sox to rip up Beckett’s contract?

No, sorry, I was thinking at lunch that I probably sounded too heated about the relatively minor point I was making. I do think there’s this myth in both our camps about Beckett being a chump last year. It’s based on his ERA, which was a reflection of his adjustment to a new league, but there were plenty of signs of what was coming. The WEEI types spent the winter saying how horrible the trade was because they’re too lazy to think, so I get annoyed when I see the myth here. But I have no problem with his contract, and am uncertain (though a bit concerned) about what the effect of a Santana deal would be. On the original point, we have nothing to argue about. So sorry for the detour.

Without being too ideological, the Times is rather lame these days.  The Science section is interesting and the crossword puzzle is fun but the paper completely laid down in the run-up to the Iraq War just like all the other rags.  After all, if a newspaper is going to style itself as the “paper of record” and other such highfalutin nonsense, it should have the guts to ask difficult questions of people in power.  I’m not saying it has to adopt any one sort of ideology, but at least make an effort to do more than echo the president at a time when every other media outlet in the country is doing the same.  Oh, and the sports section is no great shakes either.  If a game ends after 10:30 PM, there is no box score the next day.  That’s more than a bit lame.

So just how good (or bad) a SP would you trade for a 27 year old reliever with some injury concerns, but two excellent seasons in the past three?

Bronson Arroyo comes to mind. Though I think it’d be funny if they traded Pettitte for him and Pettitte retired again five minutes later. Eventually they should figure out when Andy really wants to hang it up and pull a deal like that.

“the Times is rather lame these days”

Yeah, sure, but what’s better?  Try reading the LA Times someday—or better yet don’t.