Yanks acquire Nady, Marte from Bucs for 4 prospects .

[Jayhawk Bill]

To sum it up for those of you who don't "get it": [RSF=Red Sox Fans]

 

Millar [questionable]: Sold by Marlins to a Japanese team. Red Sox won right to sign him, saying he "changed his mind". RSF=Perfectly okay.

 

Kevin Millar: The sale of Kevin Millar to the Chunichi Dragons was blocked by the Red Sox by a waiver claim. Florida, Chunichi and Kevin Millar had all made the assumption that the waiver claim was a formality, but Boston blocked the sale legitimately. To avoid a Boston, New York or Miami bias, BBC:

 

Outfielder Kevin Millar has agreed a two-year deal with the Boston Red Sox.

Millar, who had been on the verge of joining the Chunichi Dragons of Japan's Central League, earned $900,000 with the Florida Marlins last season.

 

The Marlins had worked out a deal to sell Millar to Chunichi, and he had agreed a two-year contract.

 

But when Florida put Miller on waivers, the Red Sox claimed him.

 

Florida then had to work out a deal with the Japanese team and after lengthy talks, the deal was completed.

 

"Perfectly OK" is an accurate description. "Questionable" is, well, um, questionable.

 

****************************************************

 

Matsuzaka [unethical]: Red Sox win bid in blind auction. Don't want to pay him. Go back to Lions to work out deal where part of the posting fee goes to his salary. Call it an "marketing arrangement with the Seibu Lions". Wonder how much of a marketing idea they had with them before winning Matsuzaka sweepstakes. RSF: Perfectly ok.

 

OK, show me a credible link that there was a kickback.

 

See, I checked media and found nothing. I found plenty of blog assertions...this thread by TangoTiger is fascinating:

 

http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/comments/what_price_matsuzaka/

 

but in the end John Beamer points out that there's simply no evidence that such a thing happened.

 

Lawyer John Schoenmeyer, commenting on the record regarding this deal, a legal issue related to his area of specialization, wrote:

 

One of the interesting parts of the negotiation involved the question of whether Seibu could "kick back" a portion of the posting fee to Mr. Matsuzaka and/or the Red Sox. The answer is "no."

 

Pretty straightforward.

 

http://jas-law.typepad.com/death_and_taxes/alternative_dispute_resolution/

 

Unethical? Provide your reference. Otherwise, as Schoenmeyer points out,

 

Boston had the upper hand in these negotiations, for two reasons:

 

(1) It was widely known that Mr. Matsuzaka wanted to pitch in the US. It may be that Mr. Matsuzaka had no "BATNA" (Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement), other than returning to Japan. And I've read some commentary suggesting that, in Japan, this would be considered a shameful thing.

 

(2) Boston had a secondary goal: keeping Mr. Matsuzaka away from its main rival, the New York Yankees. Boston's high posting fee pretty much guaranteed that would happen, since Boston would either sign him or Mr. Matsuzaka would return to Japan.

 

The result of negotiations wasn't necessarily unexpected--there's no logic supporting kickback from a negotiator's perspective.

 

*********************************************************

 

Drew [outright tampering]: Read the Chass article. Too long to quote. RSF: Perfectly ok.

 

I read the Chass article, and I pointed out that all of the other derivative articles cited Chass, with the story drying up quickly when there was nothing to it. I did, however, take the time to review the three blogs that you chose to cite as references previously. Here's my favorite of your own chosen references:

 

13-06-2007 @ 8:55PM

 

Andrew said...

I think the Dodgers didn't pursue this case because they didn't have one -- tampering is awfully difficult to prove even if it did occur. The decision to opt out must have been a pretty simple one for Drew. He shouldn't be bitter, but neither should Ned Colletti. The opt-out clause was in his contract, it was perfectly in his right to go and get more money, and with the way contracts went this winter, it looks like he made a great choice.

 

As for the Red Sox, they've been interested in Drew for awhile, so I think the connection to Matsuzaka is somewhat specious.

 

Reply

23-07-2007 @ 11:33AM

 

Joe said...

You may not like Scott Boras, but give him a little credit for knowing something about where the market was going to be this winter for players with Drew's ability. Just maybe that's why he negotiated the opt-out clause in the first place, to have his client in position to take advantage if the market changed. If anything, the Dodgers were idiots for agreeing to the player option and now they want to blame someone else for their mistake.

 

And there's one small problem with your timeline; Drew was already a free agent before anyone knew who would be given the rights to negotiate with Matsuzaka. Drew opted out of his contract withe the Dodgers on November 9th. The announcement that the Red Sox had won the bidding rights to Matsuzaka came on November 14th, and they didn't get into serious negotiations with Boras for nearly a month after that. But hey, don't let the facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory!

 

Reply

33-07-2007 @ 12:47PM

 

Shea said...

This is complete and utter absurdity. You are an imbecile. This offseason was shaping up to lay down some ridiculous paydays, and Drew (certainly Boras did) had to know he was due some of that. Only a complete and utter idiot wouldn't see that he could do better than $11M AAV.

 

On top of that, he's a down-home guy and religious person, and living in the absolute hell-hole that is LA for most of the year cannot have been fun. I bet he'd have taken a pay cut to get away from those people.

 

http://www.fanhouse.com/2007/03/06/did-the-red-sox-tamper-with-jd-drew/

 

Hey, you chose to cite that link, not me.

 

Yankees get Nady and Marte for a below market [in my opinion and pretty much everyone else's opinion as well] prospect package. No significant trading history with Pirates. Cashman often trades prospects for veterans at trade deadline, so will undoubtably show more "wins" since the players will impact his team sooner. "Anonymous" GMs who didn't do their jobs complain. RSF: Evil empire cheated, has a side deal with Pirates/MLB/anyone or everyone.

 

Your unwillingness or inability to correctly paraphrase my actual words diminishes your credibility.

 

Any moron who buys this deserves the punishment of watching 162 Pirates games a year for the next decade.

 

Any moron who buys what? Your argument, unsupported in some places and "supported" by blogs you cite where they laugh at and insult the poster suggesting your position?

 

Chill, Gom. You've got no case. You were better off not citing references than you are citing blogs where your position is ridiculed. Most importantly, you haven't yet even addressed the quantitative analysis of Yankees deadline trades, except to write a comment that "of course the Yankees gained value in the short term," overlooking the point that long-term results were included and cited.

 

No matter how you dress up a pig, it's still a pig. I was sorely mistaken in thinking you had some intelligence in the matter.

 

No research is needed to combat outright stupidity.

 

So take your data and shove it. I'm not against using data when I don't know or want clarification. I don't need to research things to know that Manny is a better hitter right now than Jason Bay. Yankees made a good trade. Not a conspiracy. Anyone thinking so is a fool Anyone defending such a fool is a bigger one.

 

This post has accomplished one thing. I feel much dumber for involving myself in this discussion. I feel like I've lost 20 IQ points debating you and JHB.

 

Don't insult yourself or JHB by comparing yourselves to me. That's an insult I'd never post. That's just being mean.

 

And, as an aside, you continue to violate Rule 4. You seem incapable of debate without insult...just as you appear to repeatedly regard your opinions as facts, despite lack of support for those opinions...just as you discount actual research with the line

 

If the hypothesis is inherently illogical, why bother with the tests? I can shoot down 90% of what the both of your minds try to come up with BEFORE you even start looking with something all your research has never been able to give either of you. Common sense.

 

Your mind is made up: the Yankees could not possibly have cheated. You regard it as "common sense" that your opinion is simply right, regardless of fact.

 

Gom, we're not surprised that you think that. We may, however, be amused at some of the semantic contortions you attempt as you try to squirm away from an ever-growing stack of evidence that you're probably wrong.

[Gom]

I don't think any team cheats when it comes to trading in today's market. It's not a Yankee thing, or a Red Sox thing.

 

Secondly....there is no evidence of ANYTHING. There is no evidence the Sox cheated. There is no evidence the Yankees cheated. However, I believe, and any rational person would have to agree that there is more "smoke" in the Drew/Matsuzaka/Millar deals than there is in the Nady/Marte deal. Reason being? There is nothing to even question there. Show me one link where someone in baseball says that there is a side deal or there was anything under the table. All we have is some ******** you posted about wins/losses per deal. If you take out the Abreu deal, which was nothing more than a salary dump for the Phillies, and factor that the Yankees trade prospects for veterans, your analysis has NO MERIT WHATSOEVER.

 

I'm not "probably wrong". There is a better chance of me starting in LF for the Red Sox than me being wrong. You couldn't be more wrong than if you danced at a gay cabaret. This is so cut and dry, it's not even funny.

 

Stop bitching about the Yankees "cheating", which everyone else in baseball is calling a job well done by Cashman. You can't even give credit where it is due when it is due.

 

A team winning a deal is NOT cheating.

 

So if Tabata turns into a star, and Ohlendorf turns into a solid starting pitcher...did the Pirates cheat?

 

When two teams trade with each other, one wins, loses, or it's even. It's not even or cheat. That's it.

 

When you can show me something outside of a three year analysis of deadline deals that is A) Too small a sample size Too little time to analyze C) Doesn't take into effect the goals of the particpants involved, then come back and post here in this thread. You brought it up. Now back it up.

 

Show me a link where someone puts his name next to an allegation that the Yankees are somehow cheating, and fine, I'll give this round to you. I gave you an article that quoted Colletti, and stated that MLB was looking into the transactions of the Red Sox with Millar and Dice-K. All we have is allegations, and most of us know in baseball that allegations are as far as they ever go 99% of the time, because it's just bad business to show cheating in any way. You eliminate the "trust" the public has in a fair outcome. Just ask the NBA.

 

I'm not asking you for proof, because everyone knows it isn't there. Get me allegations that the Yankees cheated in the Nady/Marte deal or shut up about this already. Enough. Anonymous GMs grumbling that the Yankees pulled off a deal that they "could have done better" doesn't count.

 

Did I "allege" the Red Sox cheated? No. I believe they bent the rules, but like I said before, considering our competitive advantage, I'd be a hypocrite to complain. All I said is that there is more smoke considering what the Sox have done than what the Yankees have done. That's as close to a fact we will ever get without proof, i.e. tampering charges actually filed.

 

I can't help but insult stupidity, sorry.

 

Get me proof.

 

Other than that, as far as I'm concerned, this thread is closed.

[yankees228]

JHB, to say things to Gom that's he probably wrong (when he states that he disagrees with your theories) or when you tell Yankee fans to live with the shame you really do make it seem like your theories are slam dunks.

 

I admit, you've done a great job of displaying evidence to help prove your point but it really is nothing more than a theory. You've proven, in my opinion, that the Yankees have made trades in the past few years in which they received much more than they've given away. However, anything past that is basically conjecture on your part.

[26 to 6]

This s*** has just gotten so out of hand. Just because a few Boston fans are disgruntled about a trade the Yankees made. Will everyone just give it a rest already, it's getting old.

[ORS]

This s*** has just gotten so out of hand. Just because a few Boston fans are disgruntled about a trade the Yankees made. Will everyone just give it a rest already' date=' it's getting old.[/quote']

Translation:

 

I'm uncomfortable with the things you are saying about my team of heros. No matter how you present your analysis to support your point, I refuse to address it because I'm incapable of confronting my emotional response.

 

This goes for every Yankee fan who says this should be dropped without specifically addressing the points JHB made.

[Jayhawk Bill]

JHB, to say things to Gom that's he probably wrong (when he states that he disagrees with your theories) or when you tell Yankee fans to live with the shame you really do make it seem like your theories are slam dunks.

 

I admit, you've done a great job of displaying evidence to help prove your point but it really is nothing more than a theory. You've proven, in my opinion, that the Yankees have made trades in the past few years in which they received much more than they've given away. However, anything past that is basically conjecture on your part.

 

DNA evidence is "nothing more than a theory." All that it does is to create a certain confidence level of certainty. It's regarded as proof in our society because the odds of error are alleged to be so great, but it's not, at a certain exacting standard of doubt, "proof." OJ Simpson walked away free--before the jury would convict him, they wanted a higher standard than mere DNA evidence. The rest of the country pretty much knew that OJ was guilty, but that particular jury had a higher standard.

 

If you've read my comments regarding umpires and Pitch f/x...all of them...you'll notice that I get much more concerned about recurring patterns of missed calls than single, very important missed calls. The reason for that is based in probability. An umpire can make a mistake, and some mistakes are game-changing. If an umpire makes four mistakes over the course of a game, and three favor one team, it's frustration but it's not necessarily evidence of bias, unless the magnitude of error is so great that the missed call is indisputable. If an umpire makes seven borderline calls--none of them third strikes or fourth balls--and if all seven favor one team, usually nobody notices. That's what gets my goat, though: a pattern of close calls going 7-0 for one team is statistically significant at the 99% level.

 

Analysis of trades by sabermetric writers is still in its infancy, so there's a paucity of data regarding what would constitute a trend, and there might be differing descriptions of what constitutes a "win." Many of us, though, are lifetime fans, and we've seen the pattern of deadline trades: a contending team usually trades away prospects--talent almost unusable in their current season--for veterans, often veterans nearing the end of their contracts. The norm in these trades is that the prospects later exceed the value received from the veteran, but the leverage of the veteran's skills in the particular situation justifies the net loss of talent.

 

What I do know, though, is that of eight trades made by the Yankees at the deadline in 2005-2007, there was this breakdown of results:

 

1) Three out of eight resulted in a significant long-term net talent gain as well as a short-term talent gain.

 

2) One resulted in a large short-term talent gain but a long-term breakeven.

 

3) Two resulted in the acquisition of a needed replacement-level player in return for a minor leaguer who never reached MLB, even for a cup of coffee.

 

4) One resulted in the acquisition of a needed replacement-level player for a veteran pitcher who had no current role, but who regained his skills the next season (in the NL Central with the Pirates) and who pitched moderately well in that location.

 

5) One resulted in the acquisition of a young, proven MLB player needed to fill a role, who remains a productive player for the Yankees, for a pitcher who pitched reasonably well for two months but who now appears washed up.

 

The aggregate long-term gain from these trades is roughly a dozen wins. Given that contending teams normally lose talent in deadline trades, that in itself attracts scrutiny.

 

More to the point, though, is that one struggles to find a losing trade. Does one count the Yankees trading Shawn Chacon away to the Pirates? His roster spot was needed--regardless of his future performance, is it fair to consider him as lost through trade, when the opportunity cost of that move was zero? Does one count the Betemit-Proctor trade, with Proctor now posting a 6.82 ERA in an NL West pitcher's park and Betemit still accruing value for the Yankees? What other trade could possibly be called a loss?

 

I look at these eight trades and I see eight wins. There's no trade that, using hindsight, shouldn't have been done. For deadline trades that's very rare.

 

Beyond that, I see three more trades this year that fit into this same category. The Pirates took a quarter of the value from the Yankees for Nady and Marte than they were reported to be demanding from other teams the very morning of the trade. The Tigers took a pitcher worth, at best, 40% of the value of their future HOF catcher, despite the paucity of good catchers this year. The Astros gave away a very good-hitting MiLB infielder for an aging pitcher whose ERA was worse than Mike Timlin's or Craig Hansen's.

 

What are the odds of flipping a coin 11 times and winning all 11 tosses? What are the odds of rolling a seven or an eleven on eleven consecutive rolls in craps? See, both are tough: the first is more than a 2,000 to one shot; the latter is more than a 15 million to one shot.

 

Brian Cashman, right now, appears to have won 11 consecutive deadline trades. The odds against that are very, very high, unless there's not a level playing field. It's not that any given trade is hugely lopsided that strikes me: it is that there's a continuing pattern of success that defies explanation, coupled with so many cases where Cashman's deal seemed, at the time, to differ from the market value of the players in question.

 

But I mentioned, in the beginning, the analogy to DNA evidence. DNA evidence is overwhelming only if a jury understands what it is and how to use it. I look at the odds I just wrote and I see overwhelming evidence that something funny is going on. Others may not--but others may not understand binomial theorem, and others, like the OJ Simpson trial jury, may simply demand extraordinary standards before assessing guilt.

 

You may consider my assessments just a "theory." I urge you to reconsider. Perhaps I'll try to determine a better baseline for the likelihood of "success" in deadline trades that I might further quantify this issue, but when the lowest estimate of that figure I consider at all reasonable--a 50% chance of success in a given deadline trade--yields a 99.5% chance that there's some factor at work that's out of the norm, I become pretty sure that something's up.

[jacksonianmarch]

A lot of bitching and moaning about the yankee deal. Seriously, the idea of a conspiracy is hilarious from all perspectives. The idea that Matsuzaka was part of a conspiracy is stupid as well.

 

The sox set a price for DiceK, knowing that they could lowball him in the salary figure once they won his exclusive rights. I think they set the bar at 6 yrs 100 mil, which is right around what a guy like Zambrano ended up signing for.

 

In terms of the yankee deal, give it a rest already. Has anyone addressed the possibility that the yankees and the pirates valued Tabata higher than you guys or other GMs are? Hell, last season, the yankees wouldnt have considered including him in a deal like this. Now, they include him with 3 other players. Could the pirates have gotten more from someone else? Maybe. Maybe not. Could the pirates scouts be in the GMs ear saying that Ohlendorf would thrive in the relative obscurity and that Tabata's potential can be reached in a system that will allow him the chance to make the bigs? Maybe. Too many variables. Thing is, they acquired 3 MLB ready talents that will fill needs for them. 2 could slot into the rotation right now, one could slot into the bullpen (and potentially close) and the other is out for the yr. Give it a rest. The bitching and whining is getting hilarious.

 

And to take it to another level, one of the reasons why the pirates needed to make this deal is, as always, money. Marte's salary doubles to 6 mil next yr in an option yr and Nady is up for arb. You figure, Nady could potentially make 9 or 10 mil next yr. Bay, OTOH, is the better player and is signed cheaper. They didnt need to deal him this yr. That is why the haul was significantly more for a player who was only a small amount better. Also, the sox desperation played into this big time.

[Jayhawk Bill]

Has anyone addressed the possibility that the yankees and the pirates valued Tabata higher than you guys or other GMs are?

 

If you'll actually read the thread, you'll find that my first post mentioned that as the leading possibility. After I checked recent history for Cashman, I changed my mind.

 

And to take it to another level, one of the reasons why the pirates needed to make this deal is, as always, money. Marte's salary doubles to 6 mil next yr in an option yr and Nady is up for arb. You figure, Nady could potentially make 9 or 10 mil next yr.

 

Although the Yankees have, by far, more money than any other team, many teams can afford either Marte, Nady, or both. The Pirates made the trade for roughly a quarter of the value demanded from any other team...as a part of a statistically improbable pattern (a point you avoid, Jacko), it stands out.

[Jayhawk Bill]

I can't help but insult stupidity' date=' sorry.[/quote']

 

Out of curiosity, do you often to talk to yourself in the mirror? :dunno:

 

...as far as I'm concerned, this thread is closed.

 

Cool! We'll discuss this issue without you. Thanks for your input!

[jacksonianmarch]

The projections that you show for minor league players are massively flawed. Take a look at the projections for guys like Dallas McPherson for example. In 2004, he batted .320 and hit 40 bombs in 130 games. He comes up to the angels, shows some power but gets abused in terms of BA and the gets hurt and is out of the org. I understand that single examples do not an argument make, but this is exactly why "can't miss" prospects miss. There are a ton of players who dominate minor league pitching or a ton of pitchers who dominate minor league hitting. The leap from AAA to the bigs is the biggest of all and a fair amount dont make it. Therefore, the projections that you show benefit from a very very high N, without taking into account the individual misses. None of them are sure bets. But if you factor in the guys who exceed the prediction, you are able to make those who disappoint a bit less obvious.

 

My whole point is, a statistical analysis of minor leaguers is all well and good. But you need to evaluate skills, batting stance, hands, quickness, path to the ball, loft, top hand, solid contact, eye and power. You cannot do this all with stats. (if you wanna see a significant change in projection, see Austin Jackson prior to his breakout midway through last yr). Many, many scouts love Tabata's swing. It is a short, compact swing which generates a ton of hard contact. IE, he is a 19 yr old handling pitching that is much older than he is and making consistent solid contact. At 19, you hardly see top notch power, and those knocking his power need to understand that. Also, at 19, he'd typically be in the GCL where I guarantee he'd hit double digit homers.

 

Regardless, like I said, projection for MiLB players is a crapshoot. If the scouts love the swing, then the numbers go out the window.

[26 Reasons to Hate Us]

Brian Cashman, right now, appears to have won 11 consecutive deadline trades. The odds against that are very, very high, unless there's not a level playing field. It's not that any given trade is hugely lopsided that strikes me: it is that there's a continuing pattern of success that defies explanation, coupled with so many cases where Cashman's deal seemed, at the time, to differ from the market value of the players in question.

 

Of course there isn't a level playing field. But the inequities can better be explained by facts (Yankees money advantage, differences in talent evaluation/team philosophies/GM ability from team to team, etc.) than conspiracy theories, no?

[ORS]

Of course there isn't a level playing field. But the inequities can better be explained by facts (Yankees money advantage' date=' differences in talent evaluation/team philosophies/GM ability from team to team, etc.) than conspiracy theories, no? Besides, what about the trades prior to the 11 you mention? Did the league decide to conspire with the Yankees right before then? Because Cashmans record is pretty mixed before that.[/quote']

In a normal environment, assuming the Yankees are the best at the traits you mention, one would expect a distribution along a scale. In this environment, you could expect another team to have 90% success, and another with 85%, and so on. What I believe JHB is saying is that this normal distribution does not exist. I can't think of a team in the winow in question who has had success at the hypothetical 50% level he suggested. This type of outlier is what raises the question.

 

Your second point only magnifies his. If the Yankee FO personnel are unchanged, they should perform at similar levels after the point of noted change, no? Or at least have experienced some failure. The radical shift, the shift that pushed their success into outlier categorization, is the reason for the discussion.

[ORS]

The projections that you show for minor league players are massively flawed. Take a look at the projections for guys like Dallas McPherson for example. In 2004, he batted .320 and hit 40 bombs in 130 games. He comes up to the angels, shows some power but gets abused in terms of BA and the gets hurt and is out of the org. I understand that single examples do not an argument make, but this is exactly why "can't miss" prospects miss. There are a ton of players who dominate minor league pitching or a ton of pitchers who dominate minor league hitting. The leap from AAA to the bigs is the biggest of all and a fair amount dont make it. Therefore, the projections that you show benefit from a very very high N, without taking into account the individual misses. None of them are sure bets. But if you factor in the guys who exceed the prediction, you are able to make those who disappoint a bit less obvious.

 

My whole point is, a statistical analysis of minor leaguers is all well and good. But you need to evaluate skills, batting stance, hands, quickness, path to the ball, loft, top hand, solid contact, eye and power. You cannot do this all with stats. (if you wanna see a significant change in projection, see Austin Jackson prior to his breakout midway through last yr). Many, many scouts love Tabata's swing. It is a short, compact swing which generates a ton of hard contact. IE, he is a 19 yr old handling pitching that is much older than he is and making consistent solid contact. At 19, you hardly see top notch power, and those knocking his power need to understand that. Also, at 19, he'd typically be in the GCL where I guarantee he'd hit double digit homers.

 

Regardless, like I said, projection for MiLB players is a crapshoot. If the scouts love the swing, then the numbers go out the window.

This is the stats vs. scouts argument, and you are going into it with bad information. Tabata is not making consistent solid contact. Consistent? Maybe. He's on pace for 100 K's in 650 PA. Solid? Not even. His IsoP is a microscopic .062. Even if he's not developed enough to take it out of the park regularly, he would be driving it into the gaps for XBH's with more frequency if he were making "consistent solid contact".

[26 to 6]

Translation:

 

I'm uncomfortable with the things you are saying about my team of heros. No matter how you present your analysis to support your point, I refuse to address it because I'm incapable of confronting my emotional response.

 

This goes for every Yankee fan who says this should be dropped without specifically addressing the points JHB made.

What do I need to specifically address? I'm not uncomfortable with anything, I just think it's ridiculous how childish some of you guys are, on both sides, at this point. It's straight up jealousy because we made that trade. Immediately your boy Bill starts crying foul. You don't see me bitching and crying conspiracy because the Red Sox only wound up with Jason Bay after trading Manny Ramirez.....and Brandon Moss.....and Craig Hansen (great move Theo) when they surely deserved a better return. I'm not speculating as to under the table dealings between the Dodgers, Pirates, and Sox; why? Because I dont give a s***, it's a f***ing trade. The games still have to be played ON THE FIELD jackass. And as for your idol JHB's accusations, he still has yet to provide any evidence that the Yankees have been dealing unfairly. So until then, both of you STFU.

[ORS]

What do I need to specifically address? I'm not uncomfortable with anything' date=' I just think it's ridiculous how childish some of you guys are, on both sides, at this point. It's straight up jealousy because we made that trade. Immediately your boy Bill starts crying foul. You don't see me bitching and crying conspiracy because the Red Sox only wound up with Jason Bay after trading Manny Ramirez.....and Brandon Moss.....and Craig Hansen (great move Theo) when they surely deserved a better return. I'm not speculating as to under the table dealings between the Dodgers, Pirates, and Sox; why? Because I dont give a s***, it's a f***ing trade. The games still have to be played ON THE FIELD jackass. And as for your idol JHB's accusations, he still has yet to provide any [i']evidence[/i] that the Yankees have been dealing unfairly. So until then, both of you STFU.

Childish? Read your posts in this thread, then read mine and JHB's. Which sound more emotional? A child is incapable of removing emotion and discussing things rationally. You have done nothing other say [paraphrased], "I don't like this make it stop", and then insulted people. That is childish behavior.

 

Jealousy? What do I have to jealous of? The results of these games have no impact on my life. I don't place the amount of importance on the outcome of sports as you seem to, given the amount of times you tried to tell us how much better life is as a Yankee fan, another childish idea.

 

My boy? I think I've explained my reasons for agreement with JHB when asked. You've chipped in with, "lol pwnt" and the like, in support of the bluster of Gom. Wonderful examples of your maturity.

 

On the field? Gee, I wonder if the people on the roster have any impact who wins on the filed? Look into if for me, would ya, and let me know.

 

No evidence? Are you really this unfamiliar with what we call evidence in our justice system? We use things like blood type, dna, fingerprints, forensic pathology, etc to prosecute crimes and build a case. All of these things paint a picture despite none of them having 100% accuracy as to the identifcation of a person or the cause of death. JHB has built a case on the data he examined.

 

You have whined like a slapped bitch in response. Who's the child now?

[ORS]

In short 26, you've posted your "feelings" on the issue, and you've demonstrated you aren't going to investigate if your feelings are perhaps misguided. Since they won't change, there's nothing more you can add to the discussion. Now run along and let the grown folks talk. Mmm'kay?

[Jayhawk Bill]

The projections that you show for minor league players are massively flawed.

 

Ummmm...for the moment humoring you with your unsupported criticism "massively flawed," exactly which projections do you cite?

 

Take a look at the projections for guys like Dallas McPherson for example. In 2004, he batted .320 and hit 40 bombs in 130 games. He comes up to the angels, shows some power but gets abused in terms of BA and the gets hurt and is out of the org.

 

Yeah, but scouts' projections are massively flawed. Back in '67, I remember lots of scouts projecting Tony C as one of the greatest power hitters in history. Funny, he never panned out. :dunno:

 

Take a look at the overall accuracy of MLEs and BP minor league projections and I think that you'll find that they compete well with Baseball America's, which are scouting-based. Baseball America rarely misses a star (although they sure missed on Pedroia), but they often overproject players with tools. BP considers age and performance, as well as things such as handedness, injury history, and phenotype, to project average results. They miss more stars who emerge despite slow starts, but they're often closer, on average, to actual results.

 

In Tabata's case (if that's to whom you're referring), this is critical. Tabata looks right now as if he'll be worthless based upon either his performance in AA or his attitude and weight problems. Yes, he has or had tools--but tools never translated into skills are worth little.

 

 

My whole point is, a statistical analysis of minor leaguers is all well and good. But you need to evaluate skills, batting stance, hands, quickness, path to the ball, loft, top hand, solid contact, eye and power. You cannot do this all with stats.

 

It's your assertion, you back it up: where does it say that BA (or some other scouting service) beats BP?

 

(if you wanna see a significant change in projection, see Austin Jackson prior to his breakout midway through last yr). Many, many scouts love Tabata's swing. It is a short, compact swing which generates a ton of hard contact. IE, he is a 19 yr old handling pitching that is much older than he is and making consistent solid contact. At 19, you hardly see top notch power,

 

At 19 Tony C had 24 home runs in MLB...

 

and those knocking his power need to understand that.

 

...and those touting Tabata need to understand that many hitters who truly become great ARE already power hitters that young. A half-dozen guys besides Tony C had double-digit MLB home run totals by the end of their age 19 seasons. By age 21, tenth-place on the career totals list is Ted Williams at 54. Tabata can still be a good player...although personalities rarely change, and his is self-destructive...but if one looks at the odds, not the dreams and hopes, the picture is bleaker.

 

FWIW, from before this catastrophic season, Tabata's Stars and Scrubs Chart from BP:

 

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/pecota/images/TABATA19880812A_010.png

 

This would now look worse.

 

Regardless, like I said, projection for MiLB players is a crapshoot. If the scouts love the swing, then the numbers go out the window.

 

Or, rather, the SCOUTS' numbers go out the window and up the flagpole, so that they'll never miss a possible star. BP will continue to project mean results, and you've yet to show that scouts are more accurate.

[Mr Crunchy]

mike lupica,consumate douchebag,the little man with the scowl and whiny temperment says this today

 

The Yankees are happy because Manny goes to play for their old manager now. Maybe it makes it easier for them to beat the Red Sox the rest of the way. Yankee addition by Red Sox subtraction. The Yankees still needed another starting pitcher and didn't get one. But then they've needed one since they passed on Johan Santana.

 

Manny? He gets out of Boston, which he wanted. Gets one more big stage. Next year he'll probably be DH-ing at an even bigger one: The new Yankee Stadium.

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/yankees/2008/07/31/2008-07-31_sizable_day_for_joe_torre_dodgers_but_bi-2.html?page=1

[Gom]

Out of curiosity, do you often to talk to yourself in the mirror? :dunno:

 

Actually, I talk to the wall. Makes more sense than you do.

Cool! We'll discuss this issue without you. Thanks for your input!

Still. No....proof....whatsoever. I'm still waiting. I love how you take into effect deadline deals, but not the rest of his deals. Brilliant. About as brilliant as running Manny out of town.

 

I'm still waiting for your proof. I guess I'll be waiting A LONG TIME.

 

Once again. Stay on the topic, or admit you were in error. Give me some proof the Yankees cheated in their Nady/Marte deal.

 

Although I don't agree they won 11 straight deadline deals, it's splitting hairs. Chacon was a loss, Fasano was inconsequential, and Abreu was a salary dump [therefore in my opinion, not a valid deal to include].

 

Cashman makes good trades. He has a s***** record for free agent pitcher signings. Your point is? Theo is better in the off-season than Cash, Cash is generally better during the season. No statistical proof here, just a gut feeling, and if I'm wrong, so be it, I'm not hanging out my head on this one. However, I'm still sticking to my guns, even with every attempt by you to change gears, that the Yankees did not cheat in the Marte/Nady deal, and...I'll go as far as saying that they did not cheat in any of the 11 deals you listed.

 

Now...for the umpteenth time...where is your proof? Anything more concrete than "anonymous GMs grumbling" after the fact?

[Jayhawk Bill]

Actually' date=' I talk to the wall. [/quote']

 

Could you do that instead of posting?

 

As ORS points out, Gom, you're ignoring a statistical case that's already been presented.

[jacksonianmarch]

mike lupica,consumate douchebag,the little man with the scowl and whiny temperment says this today

 

The Yankees are happy because Manny goes to play for their old manager now. Maybe it makes it easier for them to beat the Red Sox the rest of the way. Yankee addition by Red Sox subtraction. The Yankees still needed another starting pitcher and didn't get one. But then they've needed one since they passed on Johan Santana.

 

Manny? He gets out of Boston, which he wanted. Gets one more big stage. Next year he'll probably be DH-ing at an even bigger one: The new Yankee Stadium.

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/yankees/2008/07/31/2008-07-31_sizable_day_for_joe_torre_dodgers_but_bi-2.html?page=1

 

Lupica deserves a kick in the teeth for even bringing that up. Say NO TO MANNY

[26 Reasons to Hate Us]

In a normal environment, assuming the Yankees are the best at the traits you mention, one would expect a distribution along a scale. In this environment, you could expect another team to have 90% success, and another with 85%, and so on. What I believe JHB is saying is that this normal distribution does not exist. I can't think of a team in the winow in question who has had success at the hypothetical 50% level he suggested. This type of outlier is what raises the question.

 

Your second point only magnifies his. If the Yankee FO personnel are unchanged, they should perform at similar levels after the point of noted change, no? Or at least have experienced some failure. The radical shift, the shift that pushed their success into outlier categorization, is the reason for the discussion.

 

I think it's silly to only look at deadline trades. If teams like the Pirates truly are doing the Yankees a favor, wouldn't they do it year round? As Gom pointed out, if you look at all trades throughout the course of Cashman's tenure since he gained control, you will find a more normal distribution of success.

[ORS]

When does the trend he mentioned start? 2005. In which year did the latest Yankee dynasty stop holding 1st place in the AL East standings on July 31? 2005. No connection there, right?

[Jayhawk Bill]

I think it's silly to only look at deadline trades.

 

Deadline trades are VERY different from off-season trades:

 

1) Greater scarcity of talent--injuries have depleted the ranks of veteran players by 5-10% by July, and others are obviously underperforming.

 

2) Greater definition of need--while it's easy to see one's team as set at the 16 key positions in March, it's tougher to do that staring at stats during the All Star Break.

 

3) Greater knowledge of the opportunity to win--it's pointless to trade for the current season if your team is fading out of contention, but it's worth a long-term talent loss to go from an also-ran to solid playoff contender if you're hanging tough in July.

 

And...

 

4) We know at the deadline if the Yankees need more talent to stay in contention through September.

 

If teams like the Pirates truly are doing the Yankees a favor, wouldn't they do it year round?

 

Not if they weren't compensated for doing so year 'round...and the Yankees have the resources to look good in March every year, just from free agent signings.

 

As Gom pointed out, if you look at all trades throughout the course of Cashman's tenure since he gained control, you will find a more normal distribution of success.

 

Maybe...do you have that metric?

 

But even if that were true, it wouldn't be my point: my point is that the Yankees' performance in deadline trades since 2005 is suggestive of an external factor at work encouraging the transfer of talent from donor teams to the Yankees.

[BudLight]

When does the trend he mentioned start? 2005. In which year did the latest Yankee dynasty stop holding 1st place in the AL East standings on July 31? 2005. No connection there' date=' right?[/quote']

 

 

Okay, so now I'm confused??? Are you saying that the deadline deals that Cashman has been making since 2005 are terribly one-sided, in favor of the Yankees, with "secret" deals going on, yet the Yankees have fallen in stature as a result? If so, what's the whole point of this on-going argument??

[ORS]

Okay' date=' so now I'm confused??? Are you saying that the deadline deals that Cashman has been making since 2005 are terribly one-sided, in favor of the Yankees, with "secret" deals going on, yet the Yankees have fallen in stature as a result? If so, what's the whole point of this on-going argument??[/quote']

I'd love an explanation of how you came to that conclusion from what I posted.

 

No, I think it's pretty clear that I'm saying the Yankees received help when they needed it most.

[26 Reasons to Hate Us]

When does the trend he mentioned start? 2005. In which year did the latest Yankee dynasty stop holding 1st place in the AL East standings on July 31? 2005. No connection there' date=' right?[/quote']

 

Isn't that also the year that Cashman gained full control? I think that's a more reasonable connection than league-wide collusion..

[BudLight]

I'd love an explanation of how you came to that conclusion from what I posted.

 

No, I think it's pretty clear that I'm saying the Yankees received help when they needed it most.

 

 

"In which year did the latest Yankee dynasty stop holding 1st place in the AL East standings on July 31? 2005. No connection there, right?"

 

I took that statement to imply that the Yankees were no longer a threat to be in first place on/after 31 July, as a result Cashman was making the one-sided deals. The result of those deals has not brought another championship to the Bronx. Deduction: While Cashman was out there "cheating" since 2005 the desired results have not been realized. So, what is the big deal. The Yankees keep spending money, and no hardware to show for it.

[Jayhawk Bill]

Deduction: While Cashman was out there "cheating" since 2005 the desired results have not been realized. So' date=' what is the big deal.[/quote']

 

Some might consider it to have been a big deal if Cashman has been "cheating," such as those teams blocked from the playoffs by the Yankees 2005-2007. :dunno:

[BudLight]

Some might consider it to have been a big deal if Cashman has been "cheating' date='" such as those teams blocked from the playoffs by the Yankees 2005-2007. :dunno:[/quote']

 

 

I just think this whole argument is sort of comical. While I read and fully understand your posts relating to the statistical advantage of these trades by Cashman, I still do not see a smoking gun and find it hard to believe there would have been several GM's "in on the scam".