2007 Yankee Game Thread

[a700hitter]

so every manager would jump and pay clemens 28 million to be a number 5 starter ? LMAO yeah you would lose that poll pretty badly

Managers don't pay the players. They don't get paid to figure out the finances. They have a hard enough time figuring out when to bunt, hit and run etc. I am not getting into an economic value debate. I am merely saying that Clemens is still better than all three of those guys, which is why I was hoping we would get him. That's all. Give any manager the choice of pitching Clemens or the other three, and guess who they will pick. They are not going to care how much he makes. They only care about who will give their team the better chance of winning.

[redsoxrules]

holy f*** you're so a clemens fans that's in denial it's not even funny

[a700hitter]

holy f*** you're so a clemens fans that's in denial it's not even funny

Yeah, you've got me pegged. That must be the reason that I went to Shea a few years back hoping that Shawn Estes would peg the prick.

[CrespoBlows]

This is just silly

 

Why do you overrate pitchers based on their past dominance? Clemens is incapable of doing what he once did.

 

Have you watched him pitch at all this year? He's at 87-89 mph, and his secondary stuff has been very average at best. This guy isn't a dominant starter, anymore. He struggled against the NL, and he got ripped by the Orioles, who aren't a strong offensive team. This guy is going to struggle to put up at least average numbers out of a starter.

 

On the Red Sox, Clemens would be either the 4th or 5th starter along with Wakefield, so I was comparing him to the guys that he would be replacing.

 

He'd be the fifth starter on the Red Sox. Maybe. Tavarez has outpitched Clemens this year, until Clemens can prove he can get by with his mediocre fastball, I will take Tavarez over Clemens.

 

Especially considering Clemens' $28 million price tag.

[CrespoBlows]

Managers don't pay the players. They don't get paid to figure out the finances. They have a hard enough time figuring out when to bunt' date=' hit and run etc. I am not getting into an economic value debate. I am merely saying that Clemens is still better than all three of those guys, which is why I was hoping we would get him. That's all. Give any manager the choice of pitching Clemens or the other three, and guess who they will pick. They are not going to care how much he makes. They only care about who will give their team the better chance of winning.[/quote']

 

What's the point in having the argument? You've whittled it down to the point where you can't possibly lose.

 

"Ask any manager who they would rather have, A-Rod, or David Wright, oh, and salaries aren't an issue."

 

Salaries of the the two players is probably going to make 99.9% of the people take David Wright of Rodriguez. Economic value is the probably the most crucial decision making process that an organization makes. Why do you chuck it out the window?

[Mr Crunchy]

i have enjoyed watching this man fail this year almost as much as i enjoyed the sox success.

 

the real yankee fans i work with knew this was a disaster in the making

the posers who call themselves yankee fans(the guy who says arod is the best centerfielder hes ever seen)are confused as they were told he would be another aaron small or bobby boog a loo chacon,a man who would go 10-0 and lead them to victory.

 

last nite wasnt really his fault

his team quit pretty much the day they announced his signing

[a700hitter]

What's the point in having the argument? You've whittled it down to the point where you can't possibly lose.

 

"Ask any manager who they would rather have, A-Rod, or David Wright, oh, and salaries aren't an issue."

 

Salaries of the the two players is probably going to make 99.9% of the people take David Wright of Rodriguez. Economic value is the probably the most crucial decision making process that an organization makes. Why do you chuck it out the window?

I never looked for the argument. After I happily posted that Clemens sucks during last night's game, I was asked if I had wanted Clemens when he was available. The answer is yes, because he is still, yes still, better than the other three guys. I don't care about his salary. It's not my concern. When I watch a game I don't care what the players make. I want to see overpaid guys like Manny coming out of the dugout instead of guys like Melky Cabrera, because I want to watch them win. Here's a flash. The managers don't care about the finances. They just want the tools and opportunity to win. They don't care how management gets those players. You are right that I cannot lose the argument if the question is who is the better pitcher, so why do you keep arguing? BTW If I were considering cost in the equation, it wouldn't have much of an impact, because it is a one-year commitment which will not affect future transactions. All I am saying is that Clemens is a better pitcher than Tavarez, Gabbard and Hansack based strictly on ability. That anyone would disagree with that baffles me, but please don't tell me what question I should ask. When MVP, Cy Young and other awards are voted on, Salary is not a consideration. Batting titles and Home Run Crowns are not adjusted for economics. Clemensis a better pitcher than the other three. I don't care if he lives in a bigger house.

[a700hitter]

Why do you overrate pitchers based on their past dominance? Clemens is incapable of doing what he once did.

 

Have you watched him pitch at all this year? He's at 87-89 mph, and his secondary stuff has been very average at best. This guy isn't a dominant starter, anymore. .

Not only don't Gabbard and Hansack not dominate, they pretty much stink. While Tavarez has done better than expected, he is not Clemens equal, but that's just silly ole me.

[CrespoBlows]

The answer is yes' date=' because he is still, yes still, better than the other three guys.[/quote']

 

Clemens

 

ERA+ - 80

WHIP - 1.48

ERA - 5.32

FB Velocity - 87 mph

 

Tavarez

 

ERA+ - 97

WHIP - 1.38

ERA - 4.60

FB Velocity - 92 mph

 

 

I don't care about his salary. It's not my concern. When I watch a game I don't care what the players make.

 

Why?

 

It affects the team's ability to make roster decisions in the future.

 

I want to see overpaid guys like Manny coming out of the dugout instead of guys like Melky Cabrera, because I want to watch them win.

 

Manny can still perform at a very high level, Roger Clemens cannot. Why do you bring up the two, in the same thought?

 

Here's a flash. The managers don't care about the finances. They just want the tools and opportunity to win. They don't care how management gets those players. You are right that I cannot lose the argument if the question is who is the better pitcher, so why do you keep arguing?

 

You're ignoring the most crucial part of the decision making process. The simple question is what you are asking. But you have to ask, is the small performance upgrade worth $25 million dollars? Teams have budgets and have to meet those, otherwise, they wouldn't have to ask the second question.

 

BTW If I were considering cost in the equation, it wouldn't have much of an impact, because it is a one-year commitment which will not affect future transactions.

 

What?

 

That money still comes from somewhere. It takes $28 million out of the Yankees hands and into Roger Clemens. It probably won't affect the Yankees that much, because Steinbrenner doesn't care about it, but it would certainly affect the Red Sox, especially at the trading deadline, and certaintly in the 2007 MLB Draft.

 

 

All I am saying is that Clemens is a better pitcher than Tavarez, Gabbard and Hansack based strictly on ability. That anyone would disagree with that baffles me, but please don't tell me what question I should ask. When MVP, Cy Young and other awards are voted on, Salary is not a consideration. Batting titles and Home Run Crowns are not adjusted for economics. Clemensis a better pitcher than the other three. I don't care if he lives in a bigger house.

 

Again,

 

Clemens

 

ERA+ - 80

WHIP - 1.48

ERA - 5.32

FB Velocity - 87 mph

 

Tavarez

 

ERA+ - 97

WHIP - 1.38

ERA - 4.60

FB Velocity - 92 mph

 

I'd like to see Clemens pitch with a dimished fastball, before I say Clemens is actually a better pitcher.

[CrespoBlows]

Not only don't Gabbard and Hansack not dominate' date=' they pretty much stink. While Tavarez has done better than expected, he is not Clemens equal, but that's just silly ole me.[/quote']

 

Jon Lester is also an option, so is Clay Buchholtz, so is a pitcher from the trading block.

[a700hitter]

Jon Lester is also an option' date=' so is Clay Buchholtz, so is a pitcher from the trading block.[/quote']

As of today, he is a better pitcher than them also. I did not mention them, because neither of them has been brought up to the majors. If either was a better pitcher than Clemens right now, he would surely be in the rotation. Are there any little leaguers that you want to compare to the Rocket? Many current little leaguers will be in the majors some day, but are they better than old Roger Clemens today?

[CrespoBlows]

As of today' date=' he is a better pitcher than them also. I did not mention them, because neither of them has been brought up to the majors. If either was a better pitcher than Clemens right now, he would surely be in the rotation. [/quote']

 

Buchholz would produce better results that Clemens, but I think we both agree that the Red Sox baby prospects a little too much.

[redsoxrules]

A700hitter..who is the better pitcher here?

 

 

pitcher A

 

ERA+ - 80

WHIP - 1.48

ERA - 5.32

FB Velocity - 87 mph

 

pitcher B

 

ERA+ - 97

WHIP - 1.38

ERA - 4.60

FB Velocity - 92 mph

[a700hitter]

Clemens

 

ERA+ - 80

WHIP - 1.48

ERA - 5.32

FB Velocity - 87 mph

 

Tavarez

 

ERA+ - 97

WHIP - 1.38

ERA - 4.60

FB Velocity - 92 mph

Right now Jason Marquis has better stats than Roy Halladay. Does that mean he is the better pither?

Why?

 

It affects the team's ability to make roster decisions in the future.

That doesn't enter my mind while I am watching a game. Sorry. Maybe that's because I am not the owner or GM.

You're ignoring the most crucial part of the decision making process. The simple question is what you are asking. But you have to ask' date=' is the small performance upgrade worth $25 million dollars? Teams have budgets and have to meet those, otherwise, they wouldn't have to ask the second question.[/quote']This is completely irrelevant to deciding who is the better performer.

It probably won't affect the Yankees that much, because Steinbrenner doesn't care about it, but it would certainly affect the Red Sox, especially at the trading deadline, and certaintly in the 2007 MLB Draft.

How would it affect the 2007 draft? The Yankees did not have to give up any draft picks for him.

 

Again,

 

Clemens

 

ERA+ - 80

WHIP - 1.48

ERA - 5.32

FB Velocity - 87 mph

 

Tavarez

 

ERA+ - 97

WHIP - 1.38

ERA - 4.60

FB Velocity - 92 mph

 

I'd like to see Clemens pitch with a dimished fastball, before I say Clemens is actually a better pitcher.

Again, is Marquis better than Halladay?

[a700hitter]

Buchholz would produce better results that Clemens' date=' but I think we both agree that the Red Sox baby prospects a little too much.[/quote']More silliness. He's 0-1 in career ST starts, so he would obviously outperform Clemens in 2007. He will probably not even make the rotation in 2008.

[CrespoBlows]

Right now Jason Marquis has better stats than Roy Halladay. Does that mean he is the better pither?

 

That is a completely invalid comparision. Roy Halladay is not 45 years old with a dimished fastball.

 

That doesn't enter my mind while I am watching a game. Sorry. Maybe that's because I am not the owner or GM.This is completely irrelevant to deciding who is the better performer.

 

Your thinking is very shortsighted. Teams have a budget. You don't even consider this.

 

How would it affect the 2007 draft? The Yankees did not have to give up any draft picks for him.

 

If I'm in 10th round, and a 1st round talent has fell, because of a bonus demand issue, I'm less likely to sign him, if I signed Roger Clemens to a $28 million contract.

 

 

Again, is Marquis better than Halladay?

 

Again, invalid.

[CrespoBlows]

More silliness. He's 0-1 in career ST starts' date=' so he would obviously outperform Clemens in 2007. He will probably not even make the rotation in 2008.[/quote']

 

 

Spring training starts? You're using one spring training start? Laughable.

[riverside sluggers]

More silliness? Please youre going on to say that minor leaguers (such as top pitching prospect in the minors, Clay Bucholz) cant do a better job than Clemens' 5.34 ERA?

 

You still think the Sox shouldve forked over $28 million pro-rated for this old version of Roger?

[MANNYHOF24]

More silliness. He's 0-1 in career ST starts' date=' so he would obviously outperform Clemens in 2007. He will probably not even make the rotation in 2008.[/quote']

 

Why bring ST stats into the conversations here? BTW, from what every one said after that ST start he seemed to impress. Good comand and poise where what people where saying. Have you taken a look at his AA numbers? This kid is the real deal and there is no disbuting that. I would take Buchholz in my rotation for the leauge min. rather than Clemens for 28 million every time. Clemens is throwing in the high 80's, he can not get away with pitching like that in the AL east. I take the 23 year old who throws in the mid to high 90's and who has a from the scouting report and great change up and a good hook over the 45 year old pitcher whose ERA probably will not be bellow 4.75 again this year.

[a700hitter]

More silliness? Please youre going on to say that minor leaguers (such as top pitching prospect in the minors, Clay Bucholz) cant do a better job than Clemens' 5.34 ERA?

 

You still think the Sox shouldve forked over $28 million pro-rated for this old version of Roger?

I have said nothing about money. I said that Clemens is better than the guys we have in the 5 slot and in the minors as of today. You people are dense. If those guys were better, they'd be in the majors.

[a700hitter]

 

Spring training starts? You're using one spring training start? Laughable.

It's silly to think that a guy that has never thrown a major league pitch here or in Japan is better than Clemens is today.

[CrespoBlows]

It's silly to think that a guy that has never thrown a major league pitch here or in Japan is better than Clemens is today.

 

Of course not, because every young pitcher has an ERA of 7.90 to start.

[a700hitter]

That is a completely invalid comparision. Roy Halladay is not 45 years old with a dimished fastball.

But it is valid to declare a 33 year old converted reliever as the being better than Clemens based on 4 starts. Very convincing.

Your thinking is very shortsighted. Teams have a budget. You don't even consider this.

A team's budget has no bearing when comparing individual performance. When the Yankees play the Royals, do they spot them any runs to account for the diffrence in payrolls. Clemens is a better pitcher than the other three. Yes, he makes a lot more money, but that's because he is better.

 

If I'm in 10th round' date=' and a 1st round talent has fell, because of a bonus demand issue, I'm less likely to sign him, if I signed Roger Clemens to a $28 million contract.[/quote']You are really reaching.

[CrespoBlows]

I have said nothing about money.

 

Of course not, it would be a death blow to whatever reason you like Roger Clemens.

 

I said that Clemens is better than the guys we have in the 5 slot and in the minors as of today. You people are dense.

 

1986-2006 Roger Clemens was better. That Roger Clemens didn't have an 87 mph fastball and an average splitter.

 

 

If those guys were better, they'd be in the majors.

 

Tavarez? The guy with a lower ERA, lower WHIP, better fastball?

[a700hitter]

Of course not' date=' it would be a death blow to whatever reason you like Roger Clemens.[/quote']I hate Clemens, but he's the better pitcher. I would not trade Bucholz for Clemens because Bucholz has a future. Clemens doen't. However, if Bucholz were to square off against Clemens in the Bigs this year, every Bookmaker in the country would have the Yankees as the favorites.

[CrespoBlows]

But it is valid to declare a 33 year old converted reliever as the being better than Clemens based on 4 starts. Very convincing.

 

Oh, but he has better numbers than Roger Clemens?

 

He throws 87 mph. He's a two pitch pitcher, pitching in the toughest division in baseball. Is it any shock to why his numbers continue to slip?

 

You know what's hillarious. You're touting that Roger Clemens is better than three fringe MLB starters. He should be. A $28 million pitcher should be miles better than those three. I don't care if Roger Clemens is better than Tavarez, he wasn't paid to be better than him. He was paid to be the best pitcher on that pitching staff. He's not doing it, and he never will.

 

Seriously, I would be pissed off if Roger Clemens was the fifth best starter on the Red Sox.

 

A team's budget has no bearing when comparing individual performance. When the Yankees play the Royals, do they spot them any runs to account for the diffrence in payrolls.

 

Why do you make this point? The banality of this riposte is pathetic.

 

Clemens is a better pitcher than the other three. Yes, he makes a lot more money, but that's because he is better.

 

Great.

 

Again, you resort to saying Clemens is better than Tavarez. Good for Roger Clemens. Is that going to make a difference in a World Series run?

 

You are really reaching.

 

You know what, forget it. You have no idea of what you're talking about. You obviously only pay attention to the 25 guys on the major league roster, and have no idea how the MLB Draft works. Have you ever looked at a budget? If you spend $28 million dollars, you spent $28 million dollars. Whether it cuts into your profits, or forces you to cut spending for other programs short, you are without $28 million dollars you had.

 

This concept isn't hard. I don't see why you can't grasp it.

[CrespoBlows]

I hate Clemens' date=' but he's the better pitcher. I would not trade Bucholz for Clemens because Bucholz has a future. Clemens doen't. However, if Bucholz were to square off against Clemens in the Bigs this year, every Bookmaker in the country would have the Yankees as the favorites.[/quote']

 

Why would I care what a bookmaker thinks? You're not convincing me that signing Roger Clemens to a $28 million contract was a good investment. You didn't do it back in May, and you're certaintly not doing a better job, now.

 

We should be discussing whether Clemens' 3.20 ERA is worth $28 million, not whether he's better than Julian Tavarez minus the salaries.

[ARod2212]

He throws over 90. I don't know where you get 87 from. I've watched him hit 91-92 on the gun.

 

He doesn't have his command right now, but I'll take my chance with him down the stretch. I really don't give a s*** about payroll arguments. We overpay for everyone, it really doesn't matter if we're paying Cano $800,000 or A-Rod $80,000,000. I really just care if you produce.

 

Clemens is not the problem when the team scores zero runs.

[a700hitter]

You know what's hillarious. You're touting that Roger Clemens is better than three fringe MLB starters. He should be. A $28 million pitcher should be miles better than those three. I don't care if Roger Clemens is better than Tavarez....

If you agree with me, I guess you must be arguing just for the sake of arguing. That's pathetic.

Why do you make this point? The banality of this riposte is pathetic.

It is a banal concept...not original at all' date=' which is why it is surprising that you can't wrap your head around it.

Again, you resort to saying Clemens is better than Tavarez. Good for Roger Clemens.

You have an odd way of expressing your agreement.

[CrespoBlows]

He throws over 90. I don't know where you get 87 from. I've watched him hit 91-92 on the gun.

 

In the game against Baltimore, he topped at 90 mph once. He was sitting between 86 and 89 mph.

 

He doesn't have his command right now, but I'll take my chance with him down the stretch. I really don't give a s*** about payroll arguments. We overpay for everyone, it really doesn't matter if we're paying Cano $800,000 or A-Rod $80,000,000. I really just care if you produce.

 

Was Clemens a good investment for $28 million? This is why I didn't want him. I'd rather take that money, and go get Mark Buerhle, Javier Vazquez, etc..

 

Clemens is not the problem when the team scores zero runs.

 

He's got a 5.32 ERA. This isn't Houston, where he was completely dominating. He's a big part of the problem, too.