Yanks acquire Nady, Marte from Bucs for 4 prospects .

[Jayhawk Bill]

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' date=' 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".[/quote']

 

If I may translate:

 

While I read and fully understand your posts relating to the statistical improbability of these trades by Cashman, and I understand that it's at least a 200-1 shot that this would happen through mere chance, 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."

 

We all have our own standards of proof, BudLicht. I'm ready to condemn the Yankees around a 95% confidence level...and this seems to exceed that significantly.

 

Still, each individual sets his or her own standard with respect to reasonable doubt.

[ORS]

"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.

Think about what you are saying. You are suggesting that, supposing collusion did occur, the willful improvement of the Yankees in order to get them into the playoffs for TV ratings is OK because they didn't happen to win a championship. If you find that acceptable, so be it, but I don't.

[ORS]

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

Please explain how Cashman makes these types of trades more likely.

 

I contend that the goal is to get the Yankees in the playoffs for TV ratings, and I note that the beginning of the questionable period from JHB's analysis coincides with when the chances of the Yankees missing the playoffs was greatest. That is a really simple connection, one without assumption.

 

I think your explanation will be best served if speculation and assumption are removed as well.

[26 Reasons to Hate Us]

If I may translate:

 

While I read and fully understand your posts relating to the statistical improbability of these trades by Cashman, and I understand that it's at least a 200-1 shot that this would happen through mere chance, 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."

 

We all have our own standards of proof, BudLicht. I'm ready to condemn the Yankees around a 95% confidence level...and this seems to exceed that significantly.

 

Still, each individual sets his or her own standard with respect to reasonable doubt.

 

JHB I really think you are skewing your statistical improbabilities to suit your argument. You don't count the Yankee losses as defined by your WARP1 criteria as actual losses because they were too slight for you, or for some other excuse:

 

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?

 

You also give way too much credit to trades that, according to your own metric, were apparent ties or complete non-factors as Yankee trade wins:

 

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.

 

Not every trade is win or lose, which is why your coin flipping example, and counting trades that were non-factors or ties is not sound.

 

the way i see it there are four outcomes:

1. Win

2. Tie

3. Lose

4. Non-factor

 

Using your WARP projections from years past and projecting this years trades (Pudge and Nady/Marte as a win, Hawkins and Alberto Gonzalez as a non-factors), I see 2 losses, 2 ties, 6 wins and 2 Non-factors.

[26 Reasons to Hate Us]

I contend that the goal is to get the Yankees in the playoffs for TV ratings, and I note that the beginning of the questionable period from JHB's analysis coincides with when the chances of the Yankees missing the playoffs was greatest. That is a really simple connection, one without assumption.

 

And I contend that this 'point of noted change,' as you mentioned in an earlier post (below) coincides with Cashman actually taking over personnel decisions in 2005. Pretty simple connection, one without assumption.

 

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.

[BudLight]

If I may translate:

 

While I read and fully understand your posts relating to the statistical improbability of these trades by Cashman, and I understand that it's at least a 200-1 shot that this would happen through mere chance, 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."

 

We all have our own standards of proof, BudLicht. I'm ready to condemn the Yankees around a 95% confidence level...and this seems to exceed that significantly.

 

Still, each individual sets his or her own standard with respect to reasonable doubt.

 

You've made your points, you are convinced there is a scandal, no one will change your mind. I respect your point of view and your statistical analysis, however slighted it may be. Translations are not necessary and are very comparable to the "personal insults" you have professed to dislike from others.

 

While on the subject, can someone explain to me why Larry Lucchino took a trip to Japan in December 2006 to meet with the Seibu Lions?

[jacksonianmarch]

I cannot believe that 2 smart people are being ridiculously stupid in this thread. Take a look at the deadline deals he has made and think for once. Jesus. Analysis to come

[Jayhawk Bill]

JHB I really think you are skewing your statistical imrpobabilities to suit your argument. You don't count the Yankee losses as defined by your WARP1 criteria as actual losses because they were too slight for you' date=' of for some other excuse. You also give way too much credit to trades that were apparent ties or complete non-factors as Yankee trade wins.[/quote']

 

How many deadline trades are actual significant long-term talent wins? The Yankees had three of eight BIG wins. How often does a team give away young talent at the deadline to get what they need? The Yankees have given away just one MiLB guy who made MLB, middle reliever Ramon Ramirez, in eight trades--and even he's not a starting player, a starting pitcher, or a closer.

 

How many deadline trades are, in retrospect, just plain embarrassing? The Yankees have had none in three years.

 

You write, "You don't count the Yankee losses as defined by your WARP1 criteria as actual losses because they were too slight for you, of for some other excuse." Excuse? The "excuse" that Proctor is now posting an ERA a run worse than replacement level and Betemit still has value, so the deal's far from done? The "excuse" that filling a gap with a replacement-level player has some nominal value? The "excuse" that the player traded away was about to be released because his roster spot was needed? These seem to be "definitions," not "excuses."

 

If you have actual success rates for deadline trades of various sorts, bring forth your research. What I'm using right now is that a contending team's deadline trade is a "success" if it:

 

1) Results in long-term talent gain;

 

2) Results in short-term talent gain for the pennant without net long-term loss;

 

3) Results in filling a gap at no talent loss; and

 

4) For trades with currently active players, results in the acquisition of players whose forecasted performance suggests one of these choices.

 

In any of these cases, loss or gain of less than one win is neither a gain or a loss, although it may fill a gap.

 

Not every trade is win or lose, which is why your coin flipping example, and counting trades that were non-factors or ties is not sound.

 

the way i see it there are four outcomes:

1. Win

2. Tie

3. Lose

4. Non-factor

 

How would you calculate statistical results from this model? Wins seem very rare the way that you've structured it...maybe a one-in-ten shot. Avoiding a loss is tough in a deadline deal...getting a significant win is really pretty rare.

 

I see 2 losses, 2 ties, 6 wins and 2 Non-factors.

 

If the chance of a SIGNIFICANT win is 20%, the chance of 6 in 12 is only 1.5%, or 3 in 200. If it's 10%, the chance of fewer than 6 in 12 is 99.95%...six significant wins at that level is extraordinarily improbable.

 

What's the chance of a "win" in a deadline trade if there are wins, losses, ties and non-factors? :dunno:

[Jayhawk Bill]

I cannot believe that 2 smart people are being ridiculously stupid in this thread. Take a look at the deadline deals he has made and think for once. Jesus. Analysis to come

 

I eagerly await your analysis.

[jacksonianmarch]

FWIW, here are the Yankees' deadline deals 2005-2007:

 

July 21, 2007

The New York Yankees traded Jeff Kennard (minors) to the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim for Jose Molina.

 

This was right around the time that Jeff Mathis and Napoli started to take the reigns and Molina was without a job. The Angels were ready to DFA him, and decided to take something rather than nothing for him. This was a non-move for anaheim and Cashman used it to his advantage.

 

July 31, 2007

The New York Yankees traded Scott Proctor to the Los Angeles Dodgers for Wilson Betemit.

 

He traded Proctor because Torre would use him and only him in tight spots. Cashman wanted to use the kids in the pen while Torre wouldnt. So, Cashman took away Torre's binky and sold high on Proctor. Turns out, Proctor sucked and Betemit once again doesnt get the ABs he needs to become a solid regular. This trade is a wash.

 

July 26, 2006

The Philadelphia Phillies traded Sal Fasano to the New York Yankees for Hector Made (minors).

 

You are honestly calling this a win for someone? Sal Fasano, the guy whose moustache had more pop than his bat? Please. Everyone has a shot at players like this for nothing. This is what we got.

 

July 30, 2006

The Philadelphia Phillies traded Bobby Abreu and Cory Lidle to the New York Yankees for Matt Smith, C.J. Henry (minors), Carlos Monastrios (minors), and Jesus Sanchez (minors).

 

This was a straight salary dump AND Abreu was in the midst of his worst career season. The Yankees took the chance that he'd be worth 23 million over a yr and 2 months. That he was. The Sox had the same chance but werent willing to eat the entire salary. They could have had him and you wouldnt be able to bitch anymore.

 

July 31, 2006

The Pittsburgh Pirates traded Craig Wilson to the New York Yankees for Shawn Chacon.

 

Wilson was without a job and Chacon was on the yankees' wits end. Turns out, Chacon was more useful than Wilson.

 

July 2, 2005

The New York Yankees traded Paul Quantrill to the San Diego Padres for Darrell May, Tim Redding, and cash.

 

WHAT A WIN!!! May lasted a couple games and Redding lasted one. The sox torched him, he was DFAd and the rest is history

 

July 28, 2005

The Colorado Rockies traded Shawn Chacon to the New York Yankees for Ramon Ramirez and Eduardo Sierra (minors).

 

Chacon was one yr removed from a 7+ ERA season and was dealt to the yankees when his WHIP was nearly 1.6. Ramirez turned out to be a solid MR and Sierra reverted to norm. This was a short term win, but I'd love to have a near lights out MR right now.

 

August 27, 2005

The Chicago Cubs traded Matt Lawton to the New York Yankees for Justin Berg (minors).

 

You really calling this one a giveaway? Lawton was acquired a month earlier by the Cubs where he hit like s***. The Yankees got him for free from a team that wasnt going to contend (since he was at the end of his contract and he proved useless). And again, he proved he was useless.

 

Take a look at EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THESE MOVES. What do they all have in common? They were about to be dumped, they were coming off poor yrs, they all had monetary concerns, etc. There are no ARod's for Sean Henn deals in here. All of these players have the caveat of needing to go and the yankees took advantage of it. Throw money at the situation and the return in terms of talent drops. Works every time.

 

The Nady and Marte deals are still TBD. In 2 yrs, if Nady and Marte are somewhere else and Tabata is showing his stuff in PNC, then you guys will be ripping us for making a bad deal.

[ORS]

And I contend that this 'point of noted change' date='' as you mentioned in an earlier post (below) coincides with Cashman actually taking over personnel decisions in 2005. Pretty simple connection, one without assumption.[/quote']

This is not an explanation, merely a restatement.

 

I asked to know why having Cashman in charge made these trades more likely. I've already explained the why of my connection, you have yet to explain yours despite it being requested.

[Jayhawk Bill]

FWIW, here are the Yankees' deadline deals 2005-2007:

 

July 21, 2007

The New York Yankees traded Jeff Kennard (minors) to the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim for Jose Molina.

 

This was right around the time that Jeff Mathis and Napoli started to take the reigns and Molina was without a job. The Angels were ready to DFA him, and decided to take something rather than nothing for him. This was a non-move for anaheim and Cashman used it to his advantage.

 

July 31, 2007

The New York Yankees traded Scott Proctor to the Los Angeles Dodgers for Wilson Betemit.

 

He traded Proctor because Torre would use him and only him in tight spots. Cashman wanted to use the kids in the pen while Torre wouldnt. So, Cashman took away Torre's binky and sold high on Proctor. Turns out, Proctor sucked and Betemit once again doesnt get the ABs he needs to become a solid regular. This trade is a wash.

 

July 26, 2006

The Philadelphia Phillies traded Sal Fasano to the New York Yankees for Hector Made (minors).

 

You are honestly calling this a win for someone? Sal Fasano, the guy whose moustache had more pop than his bat? Please. Everyone has a shot at players like this for nothing. This is what we got.

 

July 30, 2006

The Philadelphia Phillies traded Bobby Abreu and Cory Lidle to the New York Yankees for Matt Smith, C.J. Henry (minors), Carlos Monastrios (minors), and Jesus Sanchez (minors).

 

This was a straight salary dump AND Abreu was in the midst of his worst career season. The Yankees took the chance that he'd be worth 23 million over a yr and 2 months. That he was. The Sox had the same chance but werent willing to eat the entire salary. They could have had him and you wouldnt be able to bitch anymore.

 

July 31, 2006

The Pittsburgh Pirates traded Craig Wilson to the New York Yankees for Shawn Chacon.

 

Wilson was without a job and Chacon was on the yankees' wits end. Turns out, Chacon was more useful than Wilson.

 

July 2, 2005

The New York Yankees traded Paul Quantrill to the San Diego Padres for Darrell May, Tim Redding, and cash.

 

WHAT A WIN!!! May lasted a couple games and Redding lasted one. The sox torched him, he was DFAd and the rest is history

 

July 28, 2005

The Colorado Rockies traded Shawn Chacon to the New York Yankees for Ramon Ramirez and Eduardo Sierra (minors).

 

Chacon was one yr removed from a 7+ ERA season and was dealt to the yankees when his WHIP was nearly 1.6. Ramirez turned out to be a solid MR and Sierra reverted to norm. This was a short term win, but I'd love to have a near lights out MR right now.

 

August 27, 2005

The Chicago Cubs traded Matt Lawton to the New York Yankees for Justin Berg (minors).

 

You really calling this one a giveaway? Lawton was acquired a month earlier by the Cubs where he hit like s***. The Yankees got him for free from a team that wasnt going to contend (since he was at the end of his contract and he proved useless). And again, he proved he was useless.

 

Take a look at EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THESE MOVES. What do they all have in common? They were about to be dumped, they were coming off poor yrs, they all had monetary concerns, etc. There are no ARod's for Sean Henn deals in here. All of these players have the caveat of needing to go and the yankees took advantage of it. Throw money at the situation and the return in terms of talent drops. Works every time.

 

The Nady and Marte deals are still TBD. In 2 yrs, if Nady and Marte are somewhere else and Tabata is showing his stuff in PNC, then you guys will be ripping us for making a bad deal.

 

OK, I've got your opinions. Where is your analysis?

 

Bummer. Cheated.

 

***

 

OK, answering your points:

 

The Angels were ready to DFA (Molina), and decided to take something rather than nothing for him. This was a non-move for anaheim and Cashman used it to his advantage.

 

Jose Molina had played in 11 of the previous 14 games, and he had played in 40 of his team's 96 games before being traded. They got Molina for Jeff Kennard, who has never played in MLB and likely never will, given that he's 27 and he's posting a 7.38 ERA in relief at AAA this season. This was a giveaway of talent: Molina was used often by Anaheim, and he was a valuable trading chip.

 

He traded Proctor because Torre would use him and only him in tight spots. Cashman wanted to use the kids in the pen while Torre wouldnt. So, Cashman took away Torre's binky and sold high on Proctor. Turns out, Proctor sucked and Betemit once again doesnt get the ABs he needs to become a solid regular. This trade is a wash.

 

OK, Proctor now sucks--but Betemit remains under Yankees control, and he's steadily accruing value and providing runs. This is the trade that's not yet done, and Betemit's future value offsets Proctor's ability to coach Little League next year.

 

You are honestly calling this a win for someone? Sal Fasano, the guy whose moustache had more pop than his bat? Please. Everyone has a shot at players like this for nothing. This is what we got.

 

Sal Fasano caught 28 games in two months for the AL East-winning Yankees. In games where he played the whole game, the Yankees had an .857 winning percentage and the opponents scored fewer than three runs per game. I'd like a catcher who could call games like that for nothing...

 

This was a straight salary dump AND Abreu was in the midst of his worst career season. The Yankees took the chance that he'd be worth 23 million over a yr and 2 months. That he was. The Sox had the same chance but werent willing to eat the entire salary. They could have had him and you wouldnt be able to bitch anymore.

 

********. As previously linked, the Red Sox thought that they had a deal for Lidle and that they were on track for Abreu when both players suddenly went to the Yankees. Check the rest of the thread.

 

Wilson was without a job and Chacon was on the yankees' wits end. Turns out, Chacon was more useful than Wilson.

 

Without a job? Wilson was .267/.339/.478 in 85 out of 103 games for the Pirates. Shawn Chacon had a 7.00 ERA in 17 games. Wilson went on to play 40 games for the Yankees in two months at roughly replacement level. Chacon was 2-3, 5.48 for Pittsburgh, with a 6.26 RA...given the NL-AL difference and the unearned runs, he continued to struggle in Pittsburgh.

 

The next year, Chacon recovered...but that was, frankly, unanticipated, and the Pirates (and later the Astros) were as frustrated with Chacon as the Yankees had been.

 

WHAT A WIN!!! May lasted a couple games and Redding lasted one. The sox torched him, he was DFAd and the rest is history.

 

Redding was released because somebody was angry after one game. He went on to be a productive pitcher. Good trade--stupid everyday management.

 

Chacon was one yr removed from a 7+ ERA season and was dealt to the yankees when his WHIP was nearly 1.6. Ramirez turned out to be a solid MR and Sierra reverted to norm. This was a short term win, but I'd love to have a near lights out MR right now.

 

Without Chacon, Yankees don't reach the ALDS in 2005. Period. 7-3, 2.85 ERA in the AL East as a starter. Yeah, Jacko, that's a win.

 

You really calling this one a giveaway? Lawton was acquired a month earlier by the Cubs where he hit like s***. The Yankees got him for free from a team that wasnt going to contend (since he was at the end of his contract and he proved useless). And again, he proved he was useless.

 

I'm calling this one a win...Lawton played in MLB. Berg, who was traded away, never did. BTW, Yankees were 10-4 in games Lawton started, and a third of his hits for New York were home runs.

 

Take a look at EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THESE MOVES. What do they all have in common? They were about to be dumped, they were coming off poor yrs, they all had monetary concerns, etc.

 

Disproven.

[jacksonianmarch]

OK, I've got your opinions. Where is your analysis?

 

Bummer. Cheated.

 

***

 

OK, answering your points:

 

The Angels were ready to DFA (Molina), and decided to take something rather than nothing for him. This was a non-move for anaheim and Cashman used it to his advantage.

 

Jose Molina had played in 11 of the previous 14 games, and he had played in 40 of his team's 96 games before being traded. They got Molina for Jeff Kennard, who has never played in MLB and likely never will, given that he's 27 and he's posting a 7.38 ERA in relief at AAA this season. This was a giveaway of talent: Molina was used often by Anaheim, and he was a valuable trading chip.

 

Mike Napoli made his MLB debut on 5/4/2006. In that season, he had a .815OPS which is pretty nice for a rookie catcher. Mathis made his MLB debut the yr before, but was in the minors for the majority of 2006. Mathis then was called up again in July of 2007. Napoli was the starting catcher at the time, but went down with an ankle sprain on 7/2/2007 and returned on 7/20. It is no coincidence that Molina was dealt when both Mathis and Napoli came back healthy and the only reason why Molina was used at that time was because of Napoli's injury. Hence, he was about to be demoted to 3rd string catcher. And on a team that thrives on the versatility of all of its players, a slow, no hit 3rd catcher doesnt have a place. He was subsequently DFAd and traded. While you might like to try and twist this one, the angels were getting rid of a waste of roster space.

 

He traded Proctor because Torre would use him and only him in tight spots. Cashman wanted to use the kids in the pen while Torre wouldnt. So, Cashman took away Torre's binky and sold high on Proctor. Turns out, Proctor sucked and Betemit once again doesnt get the ABs he needs to become a solid regular. This trade is a wash.

 

OK, Proctor now sucks--but Betemit remains under Yankees control, and he's steadily accruing value and providing runs. This is the trade that's not yet done, and Betemit's future value offsets Proctor's ability to coach Little League next year.[/b]

 

And at the time, Betemit was a bench player and Proctor was an oft used high leverage MR pitcher. The value given up was on our end. I dont know if you are going to accuse Cashman of having a crystal ball or maybe a witch because Proctor bombed out this yr. At the time, this looked like a bad deal. But it looks like we come up roses, I guess

 

You are honestly calling this a win for someone? Sal Fasano, the guy whose moustache had more pop than his bat? Please. Everyone has a shot at players like this for nothing. This is what we got.

 

Sal Fasano caught 28 games in two months for the AL East-winning Yankees. In games where he played the whole game, the Yankees had an .857 winning percentage and the opponents scored fewer than three runs per game. I'd like a catcher who could call games like that for nothing...

 

So it was all about the catcher? For a guy who loves stats, you dont like to use the rules pertaining to them when doing your analysis. A- 28 games is a s***** sample size. B- Fasano hit .143 with a blistering .508 OPS. Cmon now.

 

This was a straight salary dump AND Abreu was in the midst of his worst career season. The Yankees took the chance that he'd be worth 23 million over a yr and 2 months. That he was. The Sox had the same chance but werent willing to eat the entire salary. They could have had him and you wouldnt be able to bitch anymore.

 

********. As previously linked, the Red Sox thought that they had a deal for Lidle and that they were on track for Abreu when both players suddenly went to the Yankees. Check the rest of the thread.

 

Selective memory at its finest. Cmon Jayhawk, why are you still bitter about this one, you did win a WS you know. Remember the line from Theo about how the sox cannot compete with the yankees or some ******** like that. The reason why this fell through, granted through speculation which is all you or I have, is because the sox were going to try and have Philly eat about half the salary. The yankees came to the Phils and said, hell, here's our 2005 first rounder, figure him out. Need a lefty specialist, well take this kid who hasnt allowed a run all yr. And if you throw in Lidle, we'll take their salaries without you paying a dime. No team offered that. Admit it, you were outmaneuvered. Not a conspiracy, but another example of the yankee money machine working its magic.

 

Wilson was without a job and Chacon was on the yankees' wits end. Turns out, Chacon was more useful than Wilson.

 

Without a job? Wilson was .267/.339/.478 in 85 out of 103 games for the Pirates. Shawn Chacon had a 7.00 ERA in 17 games. Wilson went on to play 40 games for the Yankees in two months at roughly replacement level. Chacon was 2-3, 5.48 for Pittsburgh, with a 6.26 RA...given the NL-AL difference and the unearned runs, he continued to struggle in Pittsburgh.

 

The next year, Chacon recovered...but that was, frankly, unanticipated, and the Pirates (and later the Astros) were as frustrated with Chacon as the Yankees had been.

 

Wilson was awful for us. Chacon was awful for them. Again, remember, it is the pirates, but they werent getting much on the market for Wilson. The thing that made Chacon enticing was his playoff experience in NY, his streakiness and the fact that he was damn good ending the 05 campaign. Add in the fact that he was controlled and cheap, and you have a guy they might want. Remember, Littlefield was still the GM and he wasnt in the rebuild mode. he thought Chacon could be a useful starter getting the pirates back to .500

WHAT A WIN!!! May lasted a couple games and Redding lasted one. The sox torched him, he was DFAd and the rest is history.

 

Redding was released because somebody was angry after one game. He went on to be a productive pitcher. Good trade--stupid everyday management.

Tim Redding showed nothing at that time to warrant him staying with the team. Chacon and Wang outpitched him. Hell, so did Leiter. He was 27 and in his combined AAA and MLB stats that yr, he had an ERA near 7. What was the point in keeping him? He was a throwaway who happened to find an NL team to stick with. if he came back to NY, he'd suck again

 

Chacon was one yr removed from a 7+ ERA season and was dealt to the yankees when his WHIP was nearly 1.6. Ramirez turned out to be a solid MR and Sierra reverted to norm. This was a short term win, but I'd love to have a near lights out MR right now.

 

Without Chacon, Yankees don't reach the ALDS in 2005. Period. 7-3, 2.85 ERA in the AL East as a starter. Yeah, Jacko, that's a win.

 

You once again show a lack of intellect on this topic. What in god's name did Chacon do in his time in Colorado or his time since 2005 to make you think he'd be that good down the stretch. Cashman has a knack for finding fringe players who will fit into the system for a short period of time and produce. Kinda like tampons. They are cheap, they hold back the flow for a short period of time, then you throw them away. You act like we have gotten 2 cy young winners over the past 3 yrs at the deadline for a box of chocolates and some used bubble gum. We continually get fringe players and they perform for a short period of time. Chacon is another instance of that.

 

You really calling this one a giveaway? Lawton was acquired a month earlier by the Cubs where he hit like s***. The Yankees got him for free from a team that wasnt going to contend (since he was at the end of his contract and he proved useless). And again, he proved he was useless.

 

I'm calling this one a win...Lawton played in MLB. Berg, who was traded away, never did. BTW, Yankees were 10-4 in games Lawton started, and a third of his hits for New York were home runs.

 

Calling all of these a win is pathetic. Just plain stupid. Some team passes a guy through waivers, the yankees pick them up on waivers WHILE EVERY OTHER TEAM PASSES, trade a s*** level player for them and you get mad and call it a win. Just plain f***ing stupid. If you want to win, claim players off waivers and offer s*** in return. if they dont take it, then they cannot trade the player, it is as simple as that.

 

Take a look at EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THESE MOVES. What do they all have in common? They were about to be dumped, they were coming off poor yrs, they all had monetary concerns, etc.

 

Disproven.

 

Wrong

[BudLight]

Name IP H R ER BB K ERA*

J Karstens

(W, 1-0) 6.0 5 0 0 4 2 0.00

 

What a s***** performance and against the Cubs too!!!

[Jayhawk Bill]

You once again show a lack of intellect on this topic...Calling all of these a win is pathetic. Just plain stupid.

 

Gom, I didn't know that Jacko had shared his password with you. Nice, productive comments.

 

Seriously, Jacko, I defined reasonable criteria--the trades all worked in the Yankees favor. You wanted anecdotal discussion, and I responded. You then resort to insults.

 

See, if you'd left out the insults, it might've ended up being productive, but as it is you sound like a...ummm...Yankees fan.

 

And, for what it's worth, bitching about your acquisition of Chacon in 2005 when he started with a sub 3.00 ERA for two months--or bitching about the acquisition of useful talent for minor leaguers who never played a single game in MLB--is disingenuous.

[ORS]

Name IP H R ER BB K ERA*

J Karstens

(W, 1-0) 6.0 5 0 0 4 2 0.00

 

What a s***** performance and against the Cubs too!!!

Clearly he's destined for greatness.

[zackredsox]

Rotoworld -

Xavier Nady was held out of Friday's lineup with inflammation in his right quad.

 

Nady is available off the bench, and it's possible he'll be back in the starting lineup on Saturday.

 

I'd love to see him on the DL.

[26 Reasons to Hate Us]

This is not an explanation, merely a restatement.

 

I asked to know why having Cashman in charge made these trades more likely. I've already explained the why of my connection, you have yet to explain yours despite it being requested.

 

Why? Simple. Because Cashman, based on his deadline record since 2005, is a better GM than King George. If the Pirates get a new GM next year and start making shrewd moves, what would you attribute it to - a league-wide conspiracy, or the new GM in charge?

[ORS]

Why? Simple. Because Cashman' date=' based on his deadline record since 2005 is a better GM than King George. If the Pirates get a new GM next year and start making shrewd moves, what would you attribute it to - a league-wide conspiracy, or the new GM in charge?[/quote']

If you really think it's just Cashman's talents as a GM, I don't know what to say. I'll decline from continuing this discussion with you. It's no longer worth my time.

[26 Reasons to Hate Us]

If you really think it's just Cashman's talents as a GM' date=' I don't know what to say. I'll decline from continuing this discussion with you. It's no longer worth my time.[/quote']

 

I can play too:

 

If you really think it's just a league-wide conspiracy, I don't know what to say. I'll decline from continuing this discussion with you. It's no longer worth my time.

 

In other news, the Holocaust never happened, 9/11 was staged by the government and Elvis was found alive this afternoon.

 

 

Seriously though, It's Cashman's talents coupled with a sound long term philosophy, owners willing to do whatever it takes to win, and a significant cash advantage.

[26 Reasons to Hate Us]

You write, "You don't count the Yankee losses as defined by your WARP1 criteria as actual losses because they were too slight for you, of for some other excuse." Excuse? The "excuse" that Proctor is now posting an ERA a run worse than replacement level and Betemit still has value, so the deal's far from done? The "excuse" that filling a gap with a replacement-level player has some nominal value? The "excuse" that the player traded away was about to be released because his roster spot was needed? These seem to be "definitions," not "excuses."

 

They are excuses used when your WARP metric doesn't call it a win. Are you really calling Betemit for Proctor a win? How much value does Betemit have? His VORP is -0.7 and WORP is 0.1. That's a tie at best to me.

 

How would you calculate statistical results from this model? Wins seem very rare the way that you've structured it...maybe a one-in-ten shot. Avoiding a loss is tough in a deadline deal...getting a significant win is really pretty rare.

 

You already did the work man. Call a win a win, a loss a loss, and a tie a tie as you defined it on page 3 with your WARP metric. The only difference would be non-factor moves, where neither team benefits at all - say a DFA'd player traded for a minor leaguer who never contributes. The Hawkins trade is a great example.

 

If the chance of a SIGNIFICANT win is 20%, the chance of 6 in 12 is only 1.5%, or 3 in 200. If it's 10%, the chance of fewer than 6 in 12 is 99.95%...six significant wins at that level is extraordinarily improbable.

 

Nowhere in the last 3 years do I see 6 significant wins. 6 wins by your metric? Sure. But probably only 2-3 significant ones.

[ORS]

I can play too:

 

If you really think it's just a league-wide conspiracy, I don't know what to say. I'll decline from continuing this discussion with you. It's no longer worth my time.

 

In other news, the Holocaust never happened, 9/11 was staged by the government and Elvis was found alive this afternoon.

 

 

Seriously though, It's Cashman's talents coupled with a sound long term philosophy, owners willing to do whatever it takes to win, and a significant cash advantage.

I haven't said what I think it is, only what I think it could be.

 

The Cashman's talent, long term philosophy, blah, blah is cliche naive nonsense. If he's so good, and the philosophy is so Socratic, why don't they get fleecings in the offseason? You erroneously attempted to use this against the case for collusion as it was easy to show motivation for limiting the help to the deadline, but it seriously damages a "He's so super" argument because if it was all about talent, he'd get big wins in the offseason too. Of course, you didn't think about that before you went with the cliche, because you aren't thinking about this, you are just thinking of excuses.

 

In other news, this notion that Cashman's talents are the key here is every bit as absurd as the idea Hank blustered about ARod to drive the price down.

[Gom]

Still waiting for proof JHB. Where is the proof that the Yankees cheated?

 

By your logic, any team that wins significantly more than it loses is a cheater. That makes Beane a cheater, Schuerholz a cheater, etc.

 

WHERE IS YOUR PROOF?

 

I read all the posts since I asked you for proof, all you've really done, with all of your "statistical analysis" has done nothing but prove Cashman is a good GM when making deadline deals. Wow....

 

I could have told you that and saved you HOURS of research. See, I don't bother researching what I already know. I am interested in what I don't know.

 

So to give you YET ANOTHER CHANCE. I'll humor you for a sec. I DON'T KNOW IF CASHMAN CHEATED [i do know there is zero evidence of misconduct, but small minds need help]. Go run around and do your AMAZING research and find me PROOF of misconduct. Even allegations of misconduct with Cashman in ANY of his trades. Something stronger than "anonymous" sources.

 

Guys...my fellow Yankee fans....don't get drawn into the argument of wins or lack thereof, or the logic of the deals. JHB made an allegation of cheating. He's drawing you into an argument that by showing how good Cashman's deadline deals are as of late, he's cheating. Stop arguing with him. Agree with him that they are GOOD deadline deals. Deals he wish HIS GM would do, instead of trade for Gagne and trade away Manny. LET HIM SHOW US PROOF OF YANKEE MISCONDUCT IN DEADLINE DEALS. Let's expand it. Show us misconduct in ANY TRADES CASHMAN HAS MADE IN HIS CAREER.

 

I love how you, JHB, are attempting to paint me in a light that I discount your research and make this claim without supporting evidence. It is you that has no evidence whatsoever and has made this allegation, and all the evidence that you have brought to this thread shows what I've been saying, that he's a good deadline GM. I must say, your research has done one thing. Proved my point better than I did. Thanks.

 

If the next post you have doesn't have proof, I'll take that as you don't have one. Not guessing. Not hypothesising. Proof. Unless you don't have it...

 

Game. Set. Match.

 

P.S. ORS...you have been knocked around a bit defending this guy. I held you in higher analytical regard. Oh well. Let me know when you get back up around the top again. Even me, in my most trolling mood, would never have made such a ludicrous allegation.

[ORS]

Typical, Gom.

 

Arbitrary point....gibberish.....you are stupid.....I win. Wash, rinse, repeat. Yawn.

 

It's getting stale, Gom.

[CrespoBlows]

Sal Fasano caught 28 games in two months for the AL East-winning Yankees. In games where he played the whole game, the Yankees had an .857 winning percentage and the opponents scored fewer than three runs per game. I'd like a catcher who could call games like that for nothing...

 

Didn't you say something about SSS and the effect of on catcher's ERA? I think you used that point to defend Kevin Cash's ERA effect on Tim Wakefield.

 

In games in which Fasano started, the Yankees were 8-8.

 

 

 

Redding was released because somebody was angry after one game. He went on to be a productive pitcher. Good trade--stupid everyday management.

 

I think this too much of a compliment.

 

Redding had a 10.00+ RA with the Padres, in 28 IP. Throw in his bad start against Boston, and his RA soars to unacceptable totals. When he was sent down to Columbus, he posted a 1.46 WHIP, and a 5.06 ERA.

 

He's pitching decently with the Nationals, posting a 99 ERA+, but when you factor into league and park difficulties, Tim Redding probably isn't a serviceable pitcher if he's still pitching for the Yankees.

 

 

 

I'm calling this one a win...Lawton played in MLB. Berg, who was traded away, never did. BTW, Yankees were 10-4 in games Lawton started, and a third of his hits for New York were home runs.

 

A win? Really?

 

The Yankees were 10-4 because of Lawton? He had an OPS+ of 39, and had only two HR's. Kevin Reese probably could have bested Lawton's performance.

 

Expanding on the horrible performance of Lawton. He posted a negative WARP, FRAA, and VORP.

[yankees228]

I wanted to say that I completely agree with most of the points that Jacko made (and crespoblows) and I actually think it really helps to reveal a flaw in JHB's logic.

 

JHB, in my opinion you're focusing too much on what these guys did after their trades. Most of these guys were not good before the trade and their teams simply did not want them anymore. Some of them (mainly Chacon) miraculously turned it around (and then next year proved it was completely a fluke) for a few months. That really is nothing more than pure luck on the Yankees part. The Yankees were throwing darts against a wall during some of these seasons, because they were having problems, and some of them happened to stick.

 

Look, as crespo said, guys like Sal Fasano, Tim Redding, and Matt Lawton were not good at all on the Yankees. To call those trades anything other than a wash is unfair. Not only that, but even if you call them wins for the Yankees, the slight margin of victory really does not help your case or further prove your point.

[26 Reasons to Hate Us]

I haven't said what I think it is, only what I think it could be.

 

The Cashman's talent, long term philosophy, blah, blah is cliche naive nonsense. If he's so good, and the philosophy is so Socratic, why don't they get fleecings in the offseason? You erroneously attempted to use this against the case for collusion as it was easy to show motivation for limiting the help to the deadline, but it seriously damages a "He's so super" argument because if it was all about talent, he'd get big wins in the offseason too. Of course, you didn't think about that before you went with the cliche, because you aren't thinking about this, you are just thinking of excuses.

 

First off, the 'fleecings' have been grossly overstated in this thread. We are talking about maybe 2-3 deals that could possibly be construed as such.

 

As for the offseason, why make trades when you have the cash to sign whoever you want? As JHB mentioned earlier, there isn't the dearth of talent in the offseason that there is at the trade deadline.

 

But for the sake of argument, let's take a look at a few offseason trades in the same time span:

 

Jaret Wright and cash to O's for Chris Britton: Getting anything for Jaret Wright is a win.

 

Randy Johnson and cash to Arizona for Luis Vizcaino, Ross Ohlendorf, Alberto Gonzalez and Steven Jackson: What Vizcaino did alone makes this a win for us. Ross contributed some and then helped us land Nady/Marte. Win.

 

Tyler Clippard to Nats for John Albaladejo: Wash. Maybe Clippard turns into something and this becomes a loss. Too early to tell.

 

Gary Sheffield to Tigers for Anthony Claggett, Humberto Sanchez and Kevin Whelan: Short term loss, although Sheffield is decomposing in front of our eyes. If Sanchez turns into the pitcher most project him to be, this is a win.

 

Ben Julianel to Marlins for Ron Villone: Ben who? Win.

 

Tony Womack and cash to Reds for Kevin Howard and Benjamin Himes: Neither Howard nor Himes ever made the majors. The Reds got 18 ABs out of Womack. Still, it's a slight win for the Reds.

 

Still looks like Cashman is maintaining a winning record, albeit not a perfect one. He trades aging players with value for prospects (long-term philosophy). He includes cash in deals to get better players in return (significant cash advantage). These aren't just cliches; they are exemplified by his transactions.

 

In the words of JHB, "There's no trade that, using hindsight, shouldn't have been done."

[Jayhawk Bill]

Didn't you say something about SSS and the effect of on catcher's ERA? I think you used that point to defend Kevin Cash's ERA effect on Tim Wakefield.

 

In games in which Fasano started, the Yankees were 8-8.

 

***

 

I think this too much of a compliment.

 

Redding had a 10.00+ RA with the Padres, in 28 IP. Throw in his bad start against Boston, and his RA soars to unacceptable totals. When he was sent down to Columbus, he posted a 1.46 WHIP, and a 5.06 ERA.

 

He's pitching decently with the Nationals, posting a 99 ERA+, but when you factor into league and park difficulties, Tim Redding probably isn't a serviceable pitcher if he's still pitching for the Yankees.

 

***

 

A win? Really?

 

The Yankees were 10-4 because of Lawton? He had an OPS+ of 39, and had only two HR's. Kevin Reese probably could have bested Lawton's performance.

 

Expanding on the horrible performance of Lawton. He posted a negative WARP, FRAA, and VORP.

 

Yes, but in the cases of Fasano and Lawton, the Yankees literally gave away nothing--nobody they gave up reached MLB. Getting games from guys you receive in trade for minor league players who never, ever reach MLB--not even for a cup of coffee--is a win.

 

The metrics WARP and VORP evaluate players with respect to an arbitrary replacement-player threshold. That's actually a good metric for most purposes, but it's a mistake to consider a minor league player who never reached MLB to be worth zero WARP. Players who don't reach MLB aren't replacement-level. Yeah, Fasano and Lawton weren't great, although Fasano was misused playing partial games--his OPS dropped 128 points over his career when he was used as a sub, and it dropped a whopping 392 points in 2006 when he was used as a sub. In either case, though, the Yankees played fine with either player in the games, and that's better than nothing...or, more accurately, better than the possibility of using a player who clearly DIDN'T belong in MLB at their positions.

 

The players traded away didn't belong in MLB at all. That's why they never did play in MLB. And that's why these trades were wins for the Yankees.

 

Regarding Redding, the Yankees acquired--and later released without compensation--a valuable pitcher. Just because they threw away the talent because they thought that they could use their 40-man roster slots better doesn't mean that they lost the trade--it was a plus-four-win deadline trade.

 

I wanted to say that I completely agree with most of the points that Jacko made (and crespoblows) and I actually think it really helps to reveal a flaw in JHB's logic.

 

Neither Jacko nor CrespoBlows has analyzed anything, they're merely looking at anecdotal evidence. Furthermore, a trade is a transaction...Sal Fasano may not be worth much, but when the price of acquisition is zero--the loss of a worthless prospect--the transaction can still be a win.

 

JHB, in my opinion you're focusing too much on what these guys did after their trades. Most of these guys were not good before the trade and their teams simply did not want them anymore.

 

The challenge with that is the evaluation of young players expected to improve. Over several trades, "luck" of player development averages out. If you've got a good metric that I could use to reflect MiLB player values across history at various snapshot moments, let me know--barring that, actual developed value over obligated service period seems to work best.

 

But since I've got their screens open, Sal Fasano was batting .243 when the Yankees got him, and Matt Lawton was batting .268 when he was acquired.

 

Some of them (mainly Chacon) miraculously turned it around (and then next year proved it was completely a fluke) for a few months. That really is nothing more than pure luck on the Yankees part. The Yankees were throwing darts against a wall during some of these seasons, because they were having problems, and some of them happened to stick.

 

It's one thing to throw darts blindfolded and to hit the dartboard occasionally. It's another to hit the dartboard every time and to score 10 or more points half of the time.

 

Look, as crespo said, guys like Sal Fasano, Tim Redding, and Matt Lawton were not good at all on the Yankees. To call those trades anything other than a wash is unfair. Not only that, but even if you call them wins for the Yankees, the slight margin of victory really does not help your case or further prove your point.

 

Except that you're making an implicit assumption that the norm in a deadline trade is that you get a really good player half of the time.

 

I'm slowly trying to grind through deadline trades from over six years ago* to see how often a team earns more than a win either short-term or long-term. It's rare: as I'd expected, most deadline trades seem to involve contending teams acquiring players who offer little long-term gain. I'm surprised, though, at how little short-term gain for contenders is involved--the mean thus far is less than a quarter win, and the median is thus far zero--but I've got to get a bigger sample size. Each trade has to be researched for several factors, including contract length, so it's slow going. But right now, my belief is that the frequency of clear wins for the Yankees is adequate to make a case of statistical significance.

 

Still, though, anybody's not counting as a win the acquisition of an MLB player for a kid who never reaches MLB is disingenuous. The only trade of the past eleven that I can see as potentially being a Yankees "loss" is trading away Chacon--but he was about to be released because of his 7.00 ERA and his not being eligible for MiLB assignment. In context, it, too, is a win.

 

First off' date=' the 'fleecings' have been grossly overstated in this thread. We are talking about maybe 2-3 deals that could possibly be construed as such.[/quote']

 

As I wrote earlier, it's the pattern regarding frequency of wins that concerns me, not the magnitude of individual "fleecings." The issue may be, as I look at it more, the frequency of significant (more than 1.0 WARP) wins, not the oddity of never sustaining a loss.

 

Let me get back to work researching. Pardon if the research is slow--innuendo to the contrary, I actually have a life, and it seems to get in the way of progress on this stuff.

 

 

 

* Over six years ago because it diminishes the chance of a player's being involved who might provide further contributions while being under the period of obligated service to the receiving team. It's still possible, but I've yet to find a deadline trade from 2001 or earlier where that was the case.

[ORS]

First off, the 'fleecings' have been grossly overstated in this thread. We are talking about maybe 2-3 deals that could possibly be construed as such.

 

As for the offseason, why make trades when you have the cash to sign whoever you want? As JHB mentioned earlier, there isn't the dearth of talent in the offseason that there is at the trade deadline.

 

But for the sake of argument, let's take a look at a few offseason trades in the same time span:

 

Jaret Wright and cash to O's for Chris Britton: Getting anything for Jaret Wright is a win.

 

Randy Johnson and cash to Arizona for Luis Vizcaino, Ross Ohlendorf, Alberto Gonzalez and Steven Jackson: What Vizcaino did alone makes this a win for us. Ross contributed some and then helped us land Nady/Marte. Win.

 

Tyler Clippard to Nats for John Albaladejo: Wash. Maybe Clippard turns into something and this becomes a loss. Too early to tell.

 

Gary Sheffield to Tigers for Anthony Claggett, Humberto Sanchez and Kevin Whelan: Short term loss, although Sheffield is decomposing in front of our eyes. If Sanchez turns into the pitcher most project him to be, this is a win.

 

Ben Julianel to Marlins for Ron Villone: Ben who? Win.

 

Tony Womack and cash to Reds for Kevin Howard and Benjamin Himes: Neither Howard nor Himes ever made the majors. The Reds got 18 ABs out of Womack. Still, it's a slight win for the Reds.

 

Still looks like Cashman is maintaining a winning record, albeit not a perfect one. He trades aging players with value for prospects (long-term philosophy). He includes cash in deals to get better players in return (significant cash advantage). These aren't just cliches; they are exemplified by his transactions.

 

In the words of JHB, "There's no trade that, using hindsight, shouldn't have been done."

All borderline, like several of the cases JHB has in his study. I asked for a blowout win. Like, given market values of the players, the two Pirate trades.

 

Personally, I feel the notion of league wide collusion is not plausible. Too many people in the know to keep a lid on it. And several of the teams in his study do not fit the profile of having dependency on the Yankees through profit sharing. None of the Yankee brilliance here noticed this glaring contradiction. Too busy scrambling about calling people idiots. You all should wear clown shoes.

 

I find it more likely that if collusion were to occur it would be between two teams, easier to keep it hush hush, and the Pirates exemplify the type of team one would expect to do it. They are on the revenue sharing teet, and they've demonstrated little interest in spending resources in fielding a competitive team. Additionally, their trades, when viewed at market value of the time of the trade, and compared against their establishment of market value for the players (Nady) and type of players (Marte:Gonzalez), show significant inequities.

[Gom]

Typical, Gom.

 

Arbitrary point....gibberish.....you are stupid.....I win. Wash, rinse, repeat. Yawn.

 

It's getting stale, Gom.

Ok. Can't be man enough to admit when you backed the wrong horse. Figured as much.

 

Since JHB's allegations ended up going down the drain, the point he now raises is also very weak.

 

You're looking at the deals in a fishbowl. You refuse to open up your logic to include motive.

 

Here's a simple one. To get out of the contract. Lawton and Fasano were useless to their team. Traded away for a bar of soap. That's it.

 

Salary dumps, prospects, etc., these things will lead to a skewing of your analysis. Look at Latroy Hawkins this year. We DFA'd him, but found a taker in the Twins. So we took a player that may not even make AAA in his career, just to get out of the 1 million+ left on his deal. If he ends up pitching well for the Twins the rest of the way, it's still a good move for the Yankees.