Three possibilities here:

1) King is full of shit (which wouldn’t be the first time)
2) Boras continues to talk up the Yankees as interested in his players to drive up the market (which wouldn’t be the first time)
3) Cashman is going to swoop in at the 11th hour and nab Teixiera?

Probably some combination of 1 and 2.

Boras represents all of Teixeira, Manny, and Nady (another guy mentioned in the article).

Of course this is from him.

Another thing:

“Because the signings of Sabathia (seven years for $161 million) and A.J. Burnett (five years for $82.5 million) leave $48.5 million of the $88 million that came off the Yankees’ payroll, there is plenty of glue left for more additions.”

This is so untrue. The Yankee payroll, as it stands right now before arbitration increases, is $180 million. If Andy signs, it’s at $190 million. After arbitration increases, it will be at $195 million. If Cameron comes over, it’s at $205 million.

They’re not getting Manny or Teixeira. Boras is simply asking the Yankees to feign interest, and the Yankees are more than happy to comply.

King is to Boras what Gammons is to Beane.

(I refer, of course, to the moment in Moneyball where Beane uses Gammons to plant rumors of his intentions and gain him more leverage.)

They’re not getting Manny or Teixeira

I agree that they’re not going to get Manny or Teixeira. But here we are, in the 2008 offseason, and we’re worried about how the line up shapes up. It seems that Cashman is banking on huge bounce back from Matsui (in addition to Cano and Posada) because if he gets 600 PA, he’s exactly the type of hitter that we need in the line up.

But here’s the rub: next year, it won’t be about hoping that a player you have on your roster will perform to expectations. Damon and Matsui, two *huge* offensive contributors will be gone and their production will need to be replaced.

If it were so aligned, you could have your pick on how to replace them: Teixeira, Dunn, Ramirez, Burrell, Ibanez, and Abreu, not to mention some other options you can go for it you were willing to shuffle some position players around. The trade market seems to be pretty robust.

But next offseason, it’s bleak relative to this year. There’s Holliday and Guerrero, but that’s about it. There’s problem some things that they can do with moving some position players to DH and picking up someone who can play the field (Figgins or Crawford maybe?), but it’s at least plausible that they could be looking to take advantage of more talent being available now instead of then.

problem = probably

How could Manny and Girardi possibly coexist however

WOE-(Giambi and Abreu)+Swisher-WOEr so we need another bat.

Not saying that they should do it, but man, A-Rod and Manny batting back to back would be insane.

Granted, that’d be three right-handed hitters in a row, but wow, I can just picture the pitches A-Rod would get to hit.

Damon (L)
Jeter (R)
A-Rod (R)
Matsui (L)
Posada (S)
Nady (R)
Swisher (S)
Cano (L)
Cameron (R)

That’s probably not really that bad of a line-up, presuming a decent return by Matsui and decent bounce-backs by Cano and Swisher (heck, if either Cano or Swisher started hitting, you could even choose to break up the righties at the top of the lineup and bat either Cano or Swisher 3rd).

The upgrade from Melky/Gardner to Cameron, offensively, is roughly the upgrade from Swisher to Tex or Nady to Manny, no?

(That rough upgrade thing, by the way, is based on the notion that Swisher is not as bad as he looked last year and Manny is not as good as he was in LA)

An off-topic Trade Idea: The Jays don’t have a legit shot at a title this year. They now have three top teams in their own division and without Burnett have gone backward. Two of their other starters are dealing with injuries and they have no hitting. How about Austin Jackson, Phil Hughes and Ian Kennedy for Roy Halladay. Do you need to give up more for arguably the best pitcher in baseball? Perhaps. So add some talent, even Cano. Halladay made $10 million last year, not sure about this year, but he’s a better investment than Sabathia and Burnett. And you can have a potential rotation of Halladay, Sabathia, Wang, Burnett and Pettite/other, and you can move Joba back to the bullpen to cement the best pitching staff in baseball.

DeJesus for IPK??  Fair??  Who wins??

Today’s Daily News has a nice piece by Lupica demonstrating that it is not only the Yankees that he places absurd demands on, as Lupica complains about the Giants’ (you know, the reigning Super Bowl champions) inability to win in the cold.

Oh yes, he notes, they won the NFC Championship Game last January in Lambeau, but that wasn’t at HOME! New York in the winter is a much larger challenge than Green Bay, appparently.

What a tool.

Zuck, why not move Sabathia to the pen?  Imagine batters having to face him in the 8th inning - whoa boy!

Oh, I get it. Spending $242 million on two pitchers and hinting that many millions more will be spent for sore-armed pitchers or poor-fielding malcontents is within bounds, but trading prospects for the best pitcher in the game is going too far, huh? Whatever.

Wow.. President Bush seemed like he wanted that guy to throw another shoe. “Come on jackass.. hit me!!”

trading prospects for the best pitcher in the game is going too far, huh?

Wondering about trades that they might make and making fantasy baseball are too things.

... making fantasy baseball trades are two different things.

They are different, really? I wasn’t aware, sorry.

They are different, really? I wasn’t aware, sorry.

Honestly.. what do you think the chance of Jackson, Hughes and Kennedy for Halladay are?

<i.but trading prospects for the best pitcher in the game is going too far, huh? Whatever.</i>

Why would the Jays trade Halladay within their own division?  Why would the Yankees trade three kids who could turn around and beat their brains in for the next four or five years within their own division?  It’s not a question of going too far, it’s a question of the idea being completely implausible.

Do I think the Jays would do it? Let’s see, they have nothing to play for this year, the guy is expensive and they’re regrouping. You want more from Yanks side, sure, add some more talent, Cano even. Do I think the Yanks would do it? If you’re considering adding more players that cost a lot and have less talent this year anyway, why not? If you’re going for it, then go for it. They’ve about given up on Hughes and Kennedy, so you trade your best prospect in Jackson and maybe a current potential stud for the best pitcher in baseball.

the entire premise of your idea assumes that the Jays would have one potential trading partner, the Yankees.

they wouldn’t.

they would have a ton of potential partners, thus having their pick of packages, and could therefore choose to send him out of the division.

this isn’t the Santana situation:  Halladay is signed for 2 more years at a below market rate. 

there would be a large competition for his services.

You want more from Yanks side, sure, add some more talent, Cano even.

OK, no it is just going too far.  You’re trading three prospects and a starter.  Opening up a hole at second base when you already have a hole in CF that you need to deal with.  All for two years of Halladay?  Awesome rotation, sure, but you won’t score any runs, except when A-Rod hits a solo homer or intentionally walks with the bases loaded.

“Opening up a hole at second base”

Tony Womack could be had for a pittance, then you get Teix for 1b and Manny for CF and you’re set.

I like Halladay, but when did he become the best pitcher in baseball? The Yankees have given up on Hughes at age 22? Is that because anyone who’s anyone is a stud by age 21? Also, giving up Cano, who can still be one of the better offensive 2nd basemen, and our best hitting prospect for more pitching doesn’t seem like a recipe for success, even if it were a plausible trade.

Please, Dunn can play second.

I like Halladay, but when did he become the best pitcher in baseball?

I don’t like the idea either (mostly because the Yanks’ starting rotation looks solid right now, so why blow their best prospects for another one?), but the answer to that question is most likely “last year.”

I believe Halladay projects to the most valuable pitcher next year (something like 6 wins or somewhere along those lines).

Fine, whatever, make an offer, see what happens, no one is saying it’s a sure thing, ready to be announced, if someone else has a better package, okay. All I’m saying is Halladay might become available now that the Jays are depleted and hurt and the Yankees should consider broaching the idea. If I’m the Jays competing with the stacked Rays/Sox/Yankees and have one 31-year-old stud to go along with a pitching staff full of injuries and question marks and one of the worst hitting lineups in the league, I would rebuild by trading my stud. Do they share the idea? No clue. Are there better ways for them to get ahead? I’m sure there could be. Should the Yanks see if Jackson/Hughes/Kennedy are enough to do the trick? By all means. And yeah, i would give up that trio for Halladay.

One last thing: it’s kind of funny that shelling out millions for Sabbathia, Burnett, and possibly Sheets, Lowe and/or Manny is reasonable and elicits no criticism or humor on the site, but when you raise the idea of trading some prospects for another star, whoa there, slow down, now you’re really gone overboard.

This is what happens when the other Yankees blogs don’t put up posts on a lazy Sunday afternoon.

C.C. is worth the investment, though people here were unhappy about the length of the contract.  Burnett was not desired by anyone here as far as I recall.  We’re not getting Sheets or Lowe afaict, and it’s hard to seriously discuss Manny.  But if you’ve read this site at all you’ll know the posters and commenters are perhaps unanimously behind the idea of developing and playing prospects and picking up elite free agents for supportable contracts, at least for now, and the idea denuding the farm for two years of one pitcher is going to be met with skepticism.

idea of, yeah.

I know we talked about the opt out, but I personally think it is a great move rather than a stupid one by Cashman. Basically, there will be definitely be a number of teams out there that still won’t be able to project players performance into the future by understanding their decline, etc, and will throw money at Sabathia for the 3 years he had in NY.

Of course, if he sucks or gets hurt, you were going to be stuck with him anyway.

Fucking Jets.

Nevermind.

They’re just setting you up for a bigger fall, Thurm.  Don’t get involved with’em.

Incidentally, to put things in order:
Most of us seem to think that they won’t actually get Texeira.  This should be distinguished from the fact that most of us think that they should get Texeira.
Which is more relevant still to Manny: most of us, I believe, think that they should not get Manny.  Are we really so sure, however, that they aren’t going to get him?  I am far from sanguine on that point.

You know, reading these stories reminds me of the talking about Burnett and Lowe.

I honestly did not think they wanted Burnett. Then articles by idiots like King would pop up, and we would do just that.. call him an idiot.

But now MLB.com is reporting the same thing, albeit by referencing the Post article as it’s source. But I’ve got to think that the writers communicate and one will ask the other if his source is really credible or not. 

I guess my point is.. sometimes, when there’s smoke, there’s fire.

All I’m saying is Halladay might become available now that the Jays are depleted and hurt

Just FYI, Ricciardi has said on multiple recent occasions and in no uncertain terms that he absolutely is not trading Halladay.

it’s kind of funny that shelling out millions for Sabbathia, Burnett, and possibly Sheets, Lowe and/or Manny is reasonable and elicits no criticism or humor on the site, but when you raise the idea of trading some prospects for another star, whoa there, slow down, now you’re really gone overboard.

You really haven’t got a freakin’ clue what you’re talking about, have you?  I mean about this site, that is.

I’ve got to think that the writers communicate and one will ask the other if his source is really credible or not.

I really doubt it.  MLB.com is literally just reporting that it’s been reported.  And I never thought King was FOS about the Yankees being interested in Burnett, even if I do think that he’s FOS about a lot of other things.  Wasn’t he the one who said they’d offered 5/$91M?  Or was that Rosenthal?

Like you said off the top, this is most likely King shilling for Boras, and the Yankees are more than happy to play along if it makes Teixeira and Ramirez more expensive for other teams.  Boras’ problem is that he really needs to get Teixeira to Boston to open up the market for Manny, and he doesn’t want to have to take less than top dollar from the Red Sox to make that happen.

I know it’s not a big deal, but the Rockies just signed Alan Embree.
And people think some of the NYY’s actual or imagined possible moves are nuts?
Any projection for an already-drastically-declined Embree moving from land of the open plains for foul balls to Mile High?

And people think some of the NYY’s actual or imagined possible moves are nuts?

This is why I like the opt out clause after 3 years, as opposed to say, 5 years. There will likely still be enough stupid people out there who don’t realize that by age 31, Sabathia is likely on his way down the hill instead of on top of it.

I’m not sure about that.  Plenty of pitchers, especially number one starter types, have lots of good seasons after age 31.

I’m not sure about that.  Plenty of pitchers, especially number one starter types, have lots of good seasons after age 31.

Sure, but I guess my point is, if Sabathia pitches well enough to opt out after 3/$69M, I’ll gladly take that and let him walk. Who knows what he’ll get after that.. something that takes him to 37 or 38 years old, when you definitely don’t want to be paying him $25M per.

I’ll gladly take that and let him walk.

Cashman, or whoever the Yankee FO king at that time, often have very different plans than what we here clamor for.  Hopefully they are right about Abreu.

Just FYI, Ricciardi has said on multiple recent occasions and in no uncertain terms that he absolutely is not trading Halladay.

Well, to be fair Riccardi also said “It’s not lying if we know the truth”.

I think it would be wise to keep prospects and money in reserve for mid-season acquisitions as well.  Perhaps hitters like Holliday or Maglio Ordonez will be available if their respective teams are not in the playoff hunt at the trade deadline.

I know we talked about the opt out, but I personally think it is a great move rather than a stupid one by Cashman.

I think it’s neither great nor stupid.  Sabathia was insisting on it, so Cashman gave it to him; end of story.

Please, Santa.  Let it be MT and not MR.

JFTR, here’s a way-out projection for Phil Hughes.

But hasn’t everyone in the media already decided Hughes is washed up and should be wearing a Minnesota uni these days?  How can that be?

And besides, only guys who throw 117 mph have ERAs that low.

Speaking of Hughes being in Minnesota, Pete Abe and Ken Rosenthal simulataneously make a good point for anyone who thinks the Yankees paid too much for Sabathia:

Santana:
- 2007: 130 ERA+ in the AL Central
- 2008: 166 ERA+ in the NL West
- Cost: $137.5M/7 years, assuming his option is picked up or vests + Humber, Guerra, Mulvey and Gomez

Sabathia:
- 2007:  143 ERA+ in the AL Central
- 2008:  116 ERA+ in the AL Central / 260 ERA+ in the NL Central
- Cost: $161M/7 years, assuming he doesn’t opt out ($69M/3 years if he does)

The Yankees are also getting Sabathia going into his age 28 season, which is the same age Santana would have been had they picked him up.

Now, obviously there’s a significant difference in their career numbers, and thus, their projections, but the Yankees basically got the better pitcher over the last 2 years for at the very least, the same dollar amount without surrendering any prospects.

I thought this argument at RAB was interesting.

If they sign Tex, there’s no need for Cameron. They can platoon in CF, and have enough offense.

And I would tell Andy: Take it, or leave it. Why they want him back for, after these signings, is bizarre. It sure seems to me that Hughes is on the block, if Andy does sign.

Tex 7/175. I’m sticking with that.

Nice thing about George King III is that he’s so predictable.  He ended an article about pitchers the Yankees have acquired, with this:

Unless, of course, they have plans to shift Joba to the bullpen, where some believe he would be more valuable to the Yanks.

He should replace “some” with “NY Sportswriters”.  There are two scenerios where Joba is more valuable in the bullpen: 1) Every other reliever on the Yankees 40 man roster is lost to a season-ending injury, it may be better to put Joba in the bullpen and call up Hughes/Kennedy to start than have AA pitchers in the pen.  2) Joba proves both this year AND next year, that he can’t stay healthy in the rotation.  Even then it would also be based on how the rest of the Yankees’ rotation was doing; e.g. if both Hughes and Kennedy proved themselves capable it would be easier to move Joba to the pen.

That’s really it.

Pete Abe and Ken Rosenthal simulataneously make a good point for anyone who thinks the Yankees paid too much for Sabathia</i.

<i>If they sign Tex, there’s no need for Cameron.

Agreed, but

They can platoon in CF

Who’s the right-handed half of the platoon?  Swisher?

Why they want him back for, after these signings, is bizarre. It sure seems to me that Hughes is on the block, if Andy does sign.

You can never have too much pitching.  I don’t think bringing Pettitte back means they’re trading anybody.  Two more FA pitchers probably would mean trading young pitchers for a bat.

Tex 7/175. I’m sticking with that.

Like I said, interesting thought.  But you didn’t respond to the front-load/opt-out question.

Damn!  That should be:

Pete Abe and Ken Rosenthal simulataneously make a good point for anyone who thinks the Yankees paid too much for Sabathia.

They stole that from Joel Sherman.  And Santana’s deal is $137.5M without the option; it’s 7/$157M if the option vests or is picked up.

They stole that from Joel Sherman.  And Santana’s deal is $137.5M without the option; it’s 7/$157M if the option vests or is picked up.

Buster Olney wrote an identical article for ESPN yesterday. Group think, but at least it’s rational, dead-on group think.

I tend to believe Cashman; even if Pettitte signs and the rotation is full, the Yankees still value Phil Hughes highly. I don’t believe he’ll be on the trading block - he’ll be depth waiting in AAA with Kennedy and Coke.

Sign Manny Ramirez! As a DH he worths 20 million for 3 years. I give him 60/3 in a heartbeat.

Look at this article on fangraphs about Manny’s value in the open market:
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/manny-on-the-market

I tend to believe Cashman; even if Pettitte signs and the rotation is full, the Yankees still value Phil Hughes highly. I don’t believe he’ll be on the trading block - he’ll be depth waiting in AAA with Kennedy and Coke.

I really hope so. This is not a good time to trade Hughes.

The Yankees are also getting Sabathia going into his age 28 season, which is the same age Santana would have been had they picked him up.

2008 was Johan’s age 29 season.  so Sabathia is even younger.

also, let’s not forget that there were some significant concerns about Johan’s health last winter.  he was mortal (but still very good) in the second half of 2007.  he was giving up more HRs, striking out fewer hitters, his velocity was down, and there were whispers that he stopped throwing his slider for health reasons.

of course, he kindof came out and shoved that argument down everyone’s throat down the stretch this year, but based on the info at the time, there were legitimate concerns.

it was a good trade for the mets.  but waiting on Sabathia was also a good move for the yankees.

i know it’s hard to write a column these days without trashing someone, but sometimes both sides of the same decision can be “smart”. 

of course, the Yankees took a big risk that Sabathia wouldn’t sign with them, but they got it done.  good on them.

it was a good trade for the mets.  but waiting on Sabathia was also a good move for the yankees.

I don’t know if it was the right move to pass on Santana. With Santana las year we had a much better chance to make the playoffs and also we could have signed Sabathia this winter, only we had to pass on Burnett. So let me ask you something: Do you rather have Santana and Sabathia in your rotation or Burnett, Hughes and Sabathia?

I rather have the two lefties by far.

Interesting point dak.  CC-Johan not necessarily an either-or.

yes, i’d rather have Santana than Burnett.

BUT….there is also $60-80M on the Burnett side of the equation as well as Hughes and whatever other players had to go for Santana.

you were arguing for giving Manny $60M a few posts earlier.

how about Burnett + Hughes + Manny vs. Santana?

your argement works if we assume a bottomless pit of money.  if we assume a finite pit of money, we have to consider the implications of giving $140M-$160M to Santana.

It’s not like I don’t have confidence that Hughes will be a good pitcher, but I don’t think he will be a Sabathia or a Santana.

The only reason that I don’t want to sign Pettitte is because I want Hughes to pitch from the start of the season in the majors.

how about Burnett + Hughes + Manny vs. Santana?

Good one. I rather have Burnett + Hughes + Teixera/Manny/Dunn. But consider that with Santana we could’ve made the playoffs last year too.

I can’t see them signing Sabathia this year had they acquired Santana last season.  Two $130-160M contracts for pitchers is probably too much even for the Yankees.

But consider that with Santana we could’ve made the playoffs last year too.

maybe, maybe not. 

he may have been enough, i really don’t know the answer to that, but it’s not like they were one pitcher away from being a great team.

It’s not like I don’t have confidence that Hughes will be a good pitcher, but I don’t think he will be a Sabathia or a Santana.

27 year old Phil Hughes will likely not be as good as 27 year old Sabathia or Santana.  But will 22-27 year old Hughes be better than 29-34 year old Santana?  Or at least close enough that the $$‘s saved will make it clearly better?  That one is tougher to answer.  If the Yankees had been trading for 25-31 year old Santana it would have been a different story.

But consider that with Santana we could’ve made the playoffs last year too.

You have to go several degrees out to get that though.  Santana wasn’t worth 7-8 extra wins by himself, so you have to make assumptions that the extra wins would have also come at the expense of the Sox, or the idea he would have made the hitters better somehow.

27 year old Phil Hughes will likely not be as good as 27 year old Sabathia or Santana. 

Do you really think that Hughes will be a Sabathia in his prime when he’s 27?!?!
This is the problem with some yankee fans when evaluating Yankee prospects, beacuse thinking that a guy like Hughes, that has been injury prone all his profesional career(but 2006) and no overpowering stuff is going to post an ERA + of 162. Thats just wishful thinking.

Mike K. My mistake. I miss read your post. Sorry.

aren’t you agreeing with him?

whoops already corrected.

lol… sorry.

CC-Johan not necessarily an either-or.

Yes it is.  Absolutely and unequivocally.  If CC-Teixeira is an either or (and it is unless something literally unbelievable happens) then CC-Johan is also one or the other.

I’m not sure that the Yankees are out of Teixera.

If the Yankees are still in on Teixiera, it has to be because Cashman is just doing his due diligence. He’ll look like an idiot if he ends up signing for somewhere below expectations (although that doesn’t look like it will happen, but still.) Whether or not they are serious contenders is another story.

I think George King has a customized keyboard that prints some form of “...shift Joba Chamberlain to the bullpen…” at the end of every one of his articles.  Case in point, in this little ditty:

Kenny Lofton tried to convince CC that Yankees suck.

I thought this argument at RAB was interesting.

The problem with that argument is that singing any of the big bats mentioned would create a downgrade somewhere else.  If you sign Dunn or Manny, you’re either giving up defense in the OF or gaining less of an offensive upgrade than you think by losing Matsui’s bat.  If you sign Teixeira, you move Swisher to CF, which again compromises defense.  If you instead flip Swisher and go with Gardner/Melky in CF, you are back to offsetting the offensive upgrade.

Once again, I’m not all that crazy about Cameron, and I have no problem with anyone who wants to argue against getting him.  But the argument should acknowledge why he’s attractive—he plays a position where they Yankees currently have a rather serious issue that issue can’t be directly addressed on the free agent market.

Sing, O Muse!  Sing the big bats of the titans of baseball future!
(And on and on, in that vein…)

Oh, you meant SIGNING.  My bad.

He’ll look like an idiot if he ends up signing for somewhere below expectations (although that doesn’t look like it will happen, but still.)

Right.  I’d say that “closely monitoring the situation” is a better description than “in on” WRT the Yankees and Teixeira currently.  If the 10-year offers that Boras wants don’t materialize and it looks like Teixeira is going to Boston or back to Anaheim on a “reasonable” contract, Cashman will swoop in with Don’s 7/$175M offer.

Rumor is that the Red Sox will offer eight years in the $145-175MM range to Teixera. I think that’s too much. I’m not that sure I want Teixera at those prices with Swisher at first.

Oh yeah, and like I said before, that scenario would be “literally unbelievable.”

If the Yankees are still in on Teixiera, it has to be because Cashman is just doing his due diligence.

Why isn’t there more outrage, then, that we gave Teixeira’s money to Burnett?

MC- Cameron for Melky and Igawa is a steal and like you just said, it will be a big upgrade on offense to have Cameron instead of Melky or Gradner. But I would sign Dunn or Ramirez even if we can’t trade Matsui. I think we can have some depth and at the trade deadline we could shop Damon, Matsui and Nady (all of them FA at the end of the season) if the rest of the lineup is healthy.

Why isn’t there more outrage, then, that we gave Teixeira’s money to Burnett?

Grudging acceptance of the reality that it was the plan all along, whether we like it or not?  Anyway, Burnett is only half of Teixeira’ money.

Rumor is that the Red Sox will offer eight years in the $145-175MM range to Teixera.

So then Teixeira would have at least three offers for ~8/$160M.  Does anyone think for a minute that Boras won’t be able to get at least one of those teams to go higher?

I think we can have some depth and at the trade deadline we could shop Damon, Matsui and Nady (all of them FA at the end of the season) if the rest of the lineup is healthy.

How does that solve the problem of punting either offense or defense in CF in the meantime?  The RAB piece talks about visions of a 1,000 run offense.  The only way that happens is if CF is covered by some combination of Damon, Swisher and Nady.  That’s either going to get Damon hurt or worn down, and/or cost you a big chunk of the offensive value you added in Dunn or Ramirez.

Grudging acceptance of the reality that it was the plan all along, whether we like it or not?  Anyway, Burnett is only half of Teixeira’ money.

Yes, very grudging.  I’d gladly not have Swisher if it meant Cashman felt a greater sense of urgency re. Teixeira. 

And I would’ve been perfectly happy with Pettitte/Hughes at the back end of the rotation.

is 145 really 160?

“Yes, very grudging.  I’d gladly not have Swisher if it meant Cashman felt a greater sense of urgency re. Teixeira. 
And I would’ve been perfectly happy with Pettitte/Hughes at the back end of the rotation.”

Couldn’t agree more.

How does that solve the problem of punting either offense or defense in CF in the meantime?
In the meantime I want Cameron in CF for one year. He is a big upgrade on offense and not a big downgrade on defenese (Remember that Gardner’s projection at CF is based on a very small sample size).
The RAB piece talks about visions of a 1,000 run offense
To win 95+ games, we don’t need a 1,00 run offense. I don’t know how many runs we could score with Cameron in CF and Manny or Dunn in DH instead of Matsui, but I think that as a team we could project to win 95+.

To win 95+ games, we don’t need a 1,00 run offense. I don’t know how many runs we could score with Cameron in CF and Manny or Dunn in DH instead of Matsui, but I think that as a team we could project to win 95+.

You’re right, the Yanks don’t need to score 1000 runs to win 95+ games. 

With the same offense, that’s a 93 win PythagenPat team, although given the strength of the AL East, we would probably want to knock that down by a few wins.

That’s from SG’s post on the Yankees before any FA deals if you include CC in the mix.  Burnett should take innings away from Aceves and IPK (hopefully he makes it more than 150 innings), so he’s probably about 2 WAR better than the innings he replaces.  So that’s a 95 win team depending on the AL East penalty.  Now, obviously stuff on paper is a lot different than what happens on the field, but it’s good to at least have a basis for where the team is right now.  I’m all for the Cameron trade and I still love the Swisher deal.

FWIW, I think the Yankees will make at least one *serious* offer to Tex.  Not sure what that will be, or even if it will top (in $$‘s, years, or either) what someone else offers.  Sometimes - even for Boras clients - players will take less $$‘s to go someplace they really want to.  I have no idea if Tex really wants to go to the Yankees, or if he does how much less $$‘s he’s willing to take.  But I think the Yankees will get an offer out there that they *could* do, that will at least make Boston/LA of A need to increase their offer or risk Tex going to NYY.  I agree though that there is a slim chance of Tex going to NYY.  Probably around 1%.

If you sign Dunn or Manny, you’re either giving up defense in the OF or gaining less of an offensive upgrade than you think by losing Matsui’s bat.

Less of an upgrade over a *healthy* Matsui.  Cashman knows better than we over how healthy he thinks Matsui will be (and be able to stay), and also if there is ANY market for Matsui out there, to shed $$‘s.  For example, if he’s skeptical of Matsui’s health, and the Giants offer a C+ prospect and will take $10M of Matsui’s contract, is it worth signing Dunn/Burrell (I don’t want Manny)?  Remember that’s just a for example, with lots of holes in it (e.g. why would they take Matsui for $10M if they could have Dunn?).  If Cashman doesn’t upgrade for DH/1B, then he’s probably fairly confident in Matsui being able to stay healthy, and/or his ability to pick up a bat at the deadline.

I’m all for the Cameron trade and I still love the Swisher deal.

I don’t not love the Swisher deal, but it would be unsettling if that’s the only move made to upgrade the offense. 

I love the Cameron deal a lot.  Where do things stand now as far as we know?  It’s $12m that Igawa is owed, right?  Anyone else feel it’s worth kicking in a few mil if that’s what it takes to get the deal done.

I don’t want Manny either.

If you sign Dunn or Manny, you’re either giving up defense in the OF or gaining less of an offensive upgrade than you think by losing Matsui’s bat.

Wait. If you sign Manny or Dunn to replace Matsui, how are you going to give up on defense if they are not going to play defense? You are just upgrading the offense for the next 3 years.

I guess I was responding to this:

I’d gladly not have Swisher if it meant Cashman felt a greater sense of urgency re. Teixeira.

I’m not sure it’s ever a good idea to be more desperate, especially when it is in regards to a Boras client.  The opportunity cost of attaining Swisher was very, very low.

if Teixeira winds up signing for $180M+, i don’t see how we can just dismiss the extra $100M and say the Yankees opted for Burnett over Teixeira.

do we really believe there is no possible way to spend that extra $100M to put us in a better position, in combination with Burnett, than just signing Teixeira?

that’s one of the best aspects of getting Swisher:  if you can find an OF bat, he plays 1B.  if you can find a 1Bman, he plays the OF. 

the Yankees seem to be well aware that they need another bat.  it just might not be Teixeira.  i’d love to have the guy, i think he’s a great player, but they have already landed 2 of the 3 most valuable FA’s on the market.  all 3 seems like a little much to ask for…