Yanks acquire Nady, Marte from Bucs for 4 prospects .

[Jayhawk Bill]

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.

 

Cheez, I thought that you'd given your word to cease posting in this thread.

 

But that's OK--I didn't have any reason to believe you then, just as I still don't now.

 

OK, I posted batting averages earlier today for Lawton and Fasano to demonstrate that the allegation that they were traded away as worthless was bogus. Let's look deeper:

 

Matt Lawton had been worth 4.6 wins (WARP1) to his teams in 2005 when he was traded to the Yankees. He was hitting .244 in his short stint with the Cubs, but the team fell out of contention in July. Lawton was a significant trading chip--giving him away for Berg, a 21-year-old pitcher who'd posted a combined 4.32 ERA in Rookie League and low A was absurd. Berg posted progressively worse ERAs between A+ and AA ball, he failed at AAA, and his career was over--and that could reasonably have been expected. One doesn't acquire MLB outfielders worth over about a win a month to their teams for low-A pitchers struggling to stay at league average ERA.

 

Sal Fasano was a backup catcher for the Phillies, not a starting corner outfielder like Lawton. Despite little playing time, he was worth half a win to the Phillies in 2006. With Lieberthal coming back from the DL and 33-year-old rookie Chris Conte having the season of his career, Fasano was expendable, but certainly far from worthless. Giving him away for Hector Made, a 21-year-old middle infielder who hadn't moved beyond A+ level ball in four minor league seasons and who was still posting a .312 OBP with neither power nor speed and who had been moved away from shortstop because he couldn't handle the position, was foolish. Players who can catch reasonably well--as Fasano could--usually rate prospects at AA or AAA, certainly not "sure thing" prospects but often guys with a chance to make it if they can perform well in a September callup. Hector Made was already a failed prospect--the trade was a giveaway.

 

In closing, Gom, your logic appears to be that, if a player is available, the Yankees should get that player for nothing. The purpose of this exercise is to investigate whether or not that's true: it appears that other contending teams have to surrender more future value to acquire players than the Yankees do. I can show that Fasano and Lawton could reasonably have been expected to have trade value. I can't make you understand, if you don't see it already, that players with trade value can be used, by definition, to acquire other players with actual MLB potential.

 

Oh, one more thing: LaTroy Hawkins was traded to the Astros, not the Twins, Gom.

 

Over the past couple of days, (the Yankees have) made two more minor moves.

 

First, they dealt LaTroy Hawkins to Houston for a minor-leaguer. The prospect is at high-A ball and isn't too bad, actually. The fact that we got anything for Hawk is impressive, and I honestly don't know what the Astros were thinking.

 

How will an awful reliever help them make up the 27 or so games they need to make the playoffs?

 

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/42947-new-york-yankees-make-two-minor-moves

 

For a poster like you who feels authoritative enough to deign other posters as idiots, saying that Hawkins went to the Twins is a pretty stupid thing to post.

[Gom]

Had to keep going since you had no proof, and since we got past that, was now debating the point you brought up to keep from having to put up or shut up.

 

I was thinking Twins since he was rumored to go there. It happens. I got the player they traded for right, lol.

 

Question: Motive for the teams involved?

 

Even though the deal didn't go down, the Washburn deal that was rumored, a pure salary dump...if the deal had gone through, it would have netted zero wins for the Mariners, and probably a few for the Yankees.

 

To look at just one aspect of a deal without the total picture renders the logic flawed, and mainly useless. Think about this for a second about the Washburn deal that didn't happen, and follow this logic. The Yankees were willing to deal for Washburn as only a salary dump, i.e., a non-prospect. They were willing include a prospect, even a good one, if the Mariners were to take back Igawa.

 

Think about it. The Yankees were willing to include two extra players in the deal. As far as talent goes, the prospect and Igawa included are unquestionably better than the non-prospect. The Mariners balked at taking Igawa and his contract.

 

One thing both you and ORS don't seem to realize that is extremely obvious is that money is playing a huge factor in these deadline deals, in fact, one could argue that it is the biggest factor in these deadline deals. By far, the largest deal wins-wise was the largest salary dump. Take into effect the motive for the deal by the team in question, and it's much closer than you think.

[yankees228]

But in the case of Lawton it can be argued (as it was by crespoblows) that he contributed negatively. Even though the player that the Yankees gave up never made it to the majors, that might be better than the negative contribution that Lawton provided.

 

I see in a previous post that you, through another forum post, are discussing the Hawkins trade. By your logic, if Hawkins spends any time in the big leagues with the Astros and whoever the Yankees received never does than it is a win for the Yankees (even though you've made the point that Hawkins is horrible). That, to me, doesn't make too much sense.

 

On top of that, do you honestly think that receiving players such as Sal Fasano, Tim Redding, and Matt Lawton contributes to your theory? As a previous poster has mentioned (I can't find the quote) you can pick up guys that all over the place if you want, either in trade or in the free agent pool. Receiving below average MLB players like that really does not help your argument in my opinion.

[yankees228]

And, JHB, on top of everything I think you might be making a false assumption about how some of these GMs think. You're evaluating all of these trades based on newer age statistics, which I completely agree with and I don't think any other way is accurate. However, you're making the assumption that the teams the Yankees are trading with are evaluating players the same way. It is very possible that they aren't, and might just be evaluating these players based on visual scouting.

 

Now, I'm not pretending to be smarter than Major League Baseball GMs, but I'm just saying that from publications I have read in the past I'm just not so sure they use the same methods of player evaluation that have been tossed around in this thread.

[BudLight]

Clearly he's destined for greatness.

 

Using my statistical analysis this would be another win for the Yankees

[Jayhawk Bill]

Had to keep going since you had no proof...

 

Correction: since you were refusing to consider proof that involved use of binomial theorem and a high school level of statistics...

 

I was thinking Twins since he was rumored to go there. It happens.

 

What you think in this case bears little resemblance to reality.

 

One thing both you and ORS don't seem to realize that is extremely obvious is that money is playing a huge factor in these deadline deals, in fact, one could argue that it is the biggest factor in these deadline deals. By far, the largest deal wins-wise was the largest salary dump. Take into effect the motive for the deal by the team in question, and it's much closer than you think.

 

To the contrary, we DO realize that. I also know how to account for it: once all is done, if anybody were to cross-check, one could check the amount of money involved versus marginal payroll per marginal win figures for the relevant years. For the Yankees in 2006, that was $3,832,791, so a dozen-odd wins would be roughly offset by $46 million in expenditures in 2006. As Yankees salaries increased and their wins decreased, that figure rose.

 

But let's check Abreu in 2006, since you're so adamant on that one...he was worth 3.4 wins to the Yankees, and he earned $4.4 million that autumn, so the case you keep citing was still a 2.2 win advantage for the Yankees in 2006, salary considered.

 

The dollars appear not to affect the result substantively: remember, EVERY contending team seems to absorb a lot of salary at the deadline. The issue has been considered; it appears not to be as relevant as you might believe.

 

Feel free to do the math year-by-year on every trade yourself if you choose to keep complaining.

[Jayhawk Bill]

But in the case of Lawton it can be argued (as it was by crespoblows) that he contributed negatively. Even though the player that the Yankees gave up never made it to the majors' date=' that might be better than the negative contribution that Lawton provided. [/quote']

 

Lawton was worth a negative run to the Yankees in over a month of playing time. That closely approximates replacement level. Berg was worth many negative runs at AAA. Which is worse? :dunno:

 

I see in a previous post that you, through another forum post, are discussing the Hawkins trade. By your logic, if Hawkins spends any time in the big leagues with the Astros and whoever the Yankees received never does than it is a win for the Yankees (even though you've made the point that Hawkins is horrible). That, to me, doesn't make too much sense.

 

If Hawkins plays for Houston and Matt Cusick never plays for the Yankees or for any other team before his free agent eligibility, the Astros, not the Yankees, win.

 

Does that make sense? :dunno:

 

On top of that, do you honestly think that receiving players such as Sal Fasano, Tim Redding, and Matt Lawton contributes to your theory? As a previous poster has mentioned (I can't find the quote) you can pick up guys that all over the place if you want, either in trade or in the free agent pool. Receiving below average MLB players like that really does not help your argument in my opinion.

 

I'm investigating exactly how readily available such players are. My observation has been that they cost roughly a AA/AAA player who's marginal for inclusion on the 40-man roster, and such players usually get MLB playing time. Although I continue to build a database, as I type fewer than 11% of the trades I've examined involve getting an MLB player for prospects who never reach MLB. The Yankees had three such trades among the eight cited, and a fourth, the Abreu trade, was almost that lopsided. That strikes me as odd.

 

And, JHB, on top of everything I think you might be making a false assumption about how some of these GMs think. You're evaluating all of these trades based on newer age statistics, which I completely agree with and I don't think any other way is accurate. However, you're making the assumption that the teams the Yankees are trading with are evaluating players the same way. It is very possible that they aren't, and might just be evaluating these players based on visual scouting.

 

Now, I'm not pretending to be smarter than Major League Baseball GMs, but I'm just saying that from publications I have read in the past I'm just not so sure they use the same methods of player evaluation that have been tossed around in this thread.

 

Are you suggesting that Cashman's advantage is that he is competent and that the majority of MLB GMs are morons? :dunno:

 

Seriously, if that were the case, Boston's record for the past three years wouldn't've been a near-constant record of futility. Theo Epstein and his team use stats more sophisticated than those commercially available, as do the Guardians and, probably, several other teams.

 

You may have found a contributing factor, y228, but I really don't think that it's the whole story.

[yankees228]

I understand that Berg played worse than Lawton, however Lawton played on the Major League team where team results matter, whereas Berg played in the minor leagues where team results don't matter (obviously to some people they do but they don't in the overall scheme of things). In my opinion, you could make the argument that this trade is in fact a loss for the Yankees because Lawton was given the opportunity to contribute negatively to the Major League team while Berg was never afforded that same opportunity.

 

I meant to say a win for the Astros (based on your theories). My fault. However, as I stated in the above paragraph, I think that can be argued both ways...due to the fact that the Major League player being traded may contribute negatively, while the minor league player never does.

 

I'm very curious to see the rest of your analysis once your database is finished.

 

I'm not suggesting that Cashman is so much smarter than everyone else. All, I'm saying is that different teams may use different methods of evaluating players. What I'm trying to say is (I'm assuming you've read Moneyball) is that Billy Beane was able to make some really nice trades because he evaluated players differently. In your opinion these trades were wins for the Yankees, but the other GMs may not agree simply because they're evaluating their players differently.

 

Also, I do understand that this can't be the whole story.

[Jayhawk Bill]

I understand that Berg played worse than Lawton' date=' however Lawton played on the Major League team where team results matter, whereas Berg played in the minor leagues where team results don't matter (obviously to some people they do but they don't in the overall scheme of things). In my opinion, you could make the argument that this trade is in fact a loss for the Yankees because Lawton was given the opportunity to contribute negatively to the Major League team while Berg was never afforded that same opportunity.[/quote']

 

You're combining two things, one remote from the trade:

 

1) The exchange of talent reflected in the exchange of player contracts and obligations, and

 

2) The decisions regarding which players to place on the 25-man roster and how to use those players.

 

For some reason, Matt Lawton, who had performed very well with the Pirates and pretty well with the Cubs, didn't play well for the Yankees. Maybe it was a collapse of skills, but that would seem odd; maybe it was just bad luck, in which case the trade was better than the WARP1 metric suggests; maybe it was poor use of Lawton by Torre, or protection of other players by Torre.*

 

In either of those last two cases, the combination of roster construction and management would've caused a dip in Lawton's performance that September. Luck, also, might've played a role.

 

But I believe that there's a presumption that any player chosen for an MLB roster for more than a handful of innings pitched or plate appearances is, at the least, replacement level. On occasion GMs use unready or sub-par players out of desperation or utter frustration, but usually the 25-man roster is composed of players currently capable of competing without shame in MLB ballparks.

 

There is no such presumption that minor league ballplayers are always ready for The Show. That's why I subjectively consider the acquisition of an MLB player for a minor league player who never played a single MLB game to be a win for the team that acquired MLB talent.

 

 

 

 

 

* Check Terry Francona's use of Kelly Shoppach in 2005 or Dustin Pedroia in 2006, game by game, for excellent examples of how managers can do this. Both of these players faced tougher situations to give veteran players a break.

[yankees228]

Ok, but as I've already stated, having Matt Lawton on the Yankees actually hurt them. Therefore, to break it down to it's simplest form, they would have been better without Matt Lawton ever having played a game for them. It's not a loss in terms of who they gave up, because Berg never amounted to anything, but it is a loss for the Yankees because Lawton contributed negatively.

 

You could make the argument that it is a negative for both teams. The Cubs gave up Lawton who was a decent player for them, so it's a loss for them. And it's a loss for the Yankees because Lawton hurt their Major League team. I don't consider this a win.

[Jayhawk Bill]

Ok, but as I've already stated, having Matt Lawton on the Yankees actually hurt them. Therefore, to break it down to it's simplest form, they would have been better without Matt Lawton ever having played a game for them. It's not a loss in terms of who they gave up, because Berg never amounted to anything, but it is a loss for the Yankees because Lawton contributed negatively.

 

You could make the argument that it is a negative for both teams. The Cubs gave up Lawton who was a decent player for them, so it's a loss for them. And it's a loss for the Yankees because Lawton hurt their Major League team. I don't consider this a win.

 

Who would have been better than Lawton?

[CrespoBlows]

Who would have been better than Lawton?

 

Who would play better than a 39 OPS+? Seriously?

 

I got to ask. Is the trade of an average outfielder having a career year, and a LHP who will throw twenty innings, really grounds for a collusion case?

 

I just don't see it. It's a possibility, but I don't see it.

[yankees228]

Who would have been better than Lawton?

 

I don't really think that matters in the context of our the debate (and who knows who could have come up from the minor leagues or who else could have been acquired in a trade).

 

The Yankees received a player who had a negative effect on their Major League Club and the Cubs received a player who had no effect on their Major League Club.

[yankees228]

And JHB, you make it seem like he had a significant drop off when he came to the Yankees. Yes, he was good with the Pirates, but you said that he played pretty well with the Cubs. With the Cubs Lawton had an OBP of .289 and a SLG% of .308. He had a OPS+ of 55. His batting runs and batting wins were both negative. Matt Lawton did not play pretty well with the Cubs. That makes it look like his good play with the Pirates was the fluke instead of his poor play with the Yankees.

 

Matt Lawton, was not playing well before the Yankees got him and he did not play well after the Yankees got him. This is not a win for the Yankees.

[Jayhawk Bill]

I don't really think that matters in the context of our the debate (and who knows who could have come up from the minor leagues or who else could have been acquired in a trade).

 

The Yankees received a player who had a negative effect on their Major League Club and the Cubs received a player who had no effect on their Major League Club.

 

The Yankees received a player who generated seven walks, four singles, two home runs, two hit by pitches, and 31 putouts. Those were all positive effects.

 

It matters who else might have come up from AAA to take those plate appearances and outfield innings. Other AAA outfielders might've been worse. Heck, if it had been me, the Yankees would have lost all of those hits and putouts. (Of course, for the Yankees I wouldn't've been trying .) But trades are made in the context of talent availability. If Lawton was playing, there's a presumption, barring further discussion, that he was the best that they had.

 

Who else might've been had in a trade might not matter...again, there's a presumption that this was the best trade possible.

[yankees228]

Then you can make the argument that the trade shouldn't have been made. Lawton played very poorly with the Yankees and he was only slightly better with the Cubs.

 

As crespoblows pointed out, I don't think it would have been hard to find someone who would put up an OPS+ of 39.

[Jayhawk Bill]

And JHB, you make it seem like he had a significant drop off when he came to the Yankees. Yes, he was good with the Pirates, but you said that he played pretty well with the Cubs. With the Cubs Lawton had an OBP of .289 and a SLG% of .308. He had a OPS+ of 55. His batting runs and batting wins were both negative. Matt Lawton did not play pretty well with the Cubs. That makes it look like his good play with the Pirates was the fluke instead of his poor play with the Yankees.

 

Matt Lawton, was not playing well before the Yankees got him and he did not play well after the Yankees got him. This is not a win for the Yankees.

 

Lawton's 2005 PA with the Pirates: 374

Lawton's 2005 PA with the Cubs: 78

 

You seriously posit that the 374 PA were a fluke and that the 78 PA represent the true talent level? Especially when the batting average differed by only 29 points? Especially when the 374 PA better reflected his previous season's work?

 

I request an answer, y228. If you're serious, I've got more to post.

[yankees228]

They would have been better with guys like Tony Womack and Bubba Crosby on the roster in addition to the obvious choices of Gary Sheffield, Hideki Matsui, and Bernie Williams. On top of that Ruben Sierra was due to return soon from injury.

[yankees228]

I would admit that it is not fair to call his time with PIT a fluke, but they got him during a stretch where he was playing very poorly.

 

The underlying factor is that he contributed negatively to the Yankees.

[Jayhawk Bill]

They would have been better with guys like Tony Womack and Bubba Crosby on the roster in addition to the obvious choices of Gary Sheffield' date=' Hideki Matsui, and Bernie Williams. On top of that Ruben Sierra was due to return soon from injury.[/quote']

 

You seriously posit that the 374 PA were a fluke and that the 78 PA represent the true talent level? Especially when the batting average differed by only 29 points? Especially when the 374 PA better reflected his previous season's work?

 

I would admit that it is not fair to call his time with PIT a fluke' date=' but they got him during a stretch where he was playing very poorly.[/quote']

 

But that's the whole point. His talent was greater than that of Tony Womack or Bubba Crosby, and it wasn't even close.

 

He made positive contributions...he made about half as many as might've been expected, but he could easily have been expected to outperform the options you mention.

[yankees228]

I just admitted it wasn't a fluke...

 

EDIT: Clearly it was poor word choice, but I really think you're missing the point when it comes to this trade and Matt Lawton's time with the Yankees.

[Jayhawk Bill]

I just admitted it wasn't a fluke...

 

EDIT: Clearly it was poor word choice, but I really think you're missing the point when it comes to this trade and Matt Lawton's time with the Yankees.

 

I think that you're missing the point. From the past two years' performance...or three years'...or five years'...Lawton would've been starting.

 

At no point in his playing history did Berg deserve a chance to start in MLB, nor did he ever appear to be on track to approach an MLB career.

[yankees228]

He made positive contributions, but in the end his overall contribution was negative. Tony Womack and Bubba Crosby might have been able to provide things on field and on the base paths that Lawton could not have. On top of that Bubba Crosby had an OPS+ of 70 during the 2005 season with the Yankees.

 

This trade was not a win for the Yankees, but even if you choose to consider it a win, the acquisition of Matt Lawton by the New York Yankees does not add to your overall argument.

 

You're welcome to respond, but it's pointless for us to continue to discuss Matt Lawton because we're both repeating ourselves and we're not going to agree.

[yankees228]

I think that you're missing the point. From the past two years' performance...or three years'...or five years'...Lawton would've been starting.

 

At no point in his playing history did Berg deserve a chance to start in MLB, nor did he ever appear to be on track to approach an MLB career.

 

But you've been focusing a lot on what some of these guys did with the Yankees. When it comes down to it, Lawton played poorly with the Yankees.

 

EDIT: You're referring to this trade as a win for the Yankees. This implies that it was beneficial to the Yankees. Therefore his prior successes have no bearing on whether or not it was a win for the Yankees. This trade was not beneficial to the Yankees, and therefore is not a win.

[Jayhawk Bill]

He made positive contributions' date=' but in the end his overall contribution was negative. Tony Womack and Bubba Crosby might have been able to provide things on field and on the base paths that Lawton could not have. On top of that Bubba Crosby had an OPS+ of 70 during the 2005 season with the Yankees.[/quote']

 

Bubba Crosby already played in 25 games that September. Cloning technology was inadequate in 2005 to allow him to play twice.

 

Tony Womack was allowed five plate appearances and two games in the outfield that September. He was 3-5...maybe you're right.

 

This trade was not a win for the Yankees, but even if you choose to consider it a win, the acquisition of Matt Lawton by the New York Yankees does not add to your overall argument.

 

Yeah. The loss of Berg ruined the Yankees' future.

 

You're welcome to respond, but it's pointless for us to continue to discuss Matt Lawton because we're both repeating ourselves and we're not going to agree.

 

To the contrary, you hadn't yet suggested the cloning of Bubba Crosby until your last post. Continue if you choose.

[yankees228]

I understand that Crosby was playing some outfield at the same time as Lawton. I was merely stating that Crosby was better for the team than Lawton, and you could make the case that Womack would have been too.

 

Also, Berg clearly has no bearing on this trade. Matt Lawton made the Yankees worse during his time with the team. That does have bearing on whether it's a win or a loss.

[Jayhawk Bill]

I understand that Crosby was playing some outfield at the same time as Lawton. I was merely stating that Crosby was better for the team than Lawton...

 

But Crosby could not have played twice each game, and he was already playing about 80% of the games.

 

Also, Berg clearly has no bearing on this trade.

 

How could the player that the Yankees gave up in a trade have no bearing on evaluating that trade?

[yankees228]

Right, I know that Crosby was playing a lot, all I was doing was listing the guys that I thought should have been outfielders on the team.

 

I worded the part about Berg wrong, what I meant was that he does not swing the trade in either teams favor in my opinion.

 

Look, I think that because Lawton contributed negatively to the Yankees you cannot consider it a win for the Yankees. You disagree. Neither of us, at this point, are going to change our opinions on this particular trade. I really don't think there's a point to continuing to discuss this particular trade.

[Gom]

Correction: since you were refusing to consider proof that involved use of binomial theorem and a high school level of statistics...

Nope. Sorry. Looking for an allegation. If you consider a good trade cheating, then you should stop watching baseball and start watching the Discovery Channel, since you are completely incapable of understanding that in an avenue where competition is involved, such as in sports, there is a loser and a winner. This basic fundamental aspect escapes you, your binomial theorem, and any level of statistical computation. In other words, in this particular case, you're an idiot.

 

Thank you again for showing Cashman to making good deadline deals. Once again, because I'm hoping that it will get through to you....all your analysis has done is show that Cashman makes good deals at the deadline. Thanks for wasting all of our time with your conspiracy theory based on an allegation that you have shown has no basis, merit, or proof. Thank you for actually arguing against your position with your research. Why can't you just admit you have ZERO proof of your allegations, and had a brain fart and f***ed up?

 

By any chance, was the captain of the Titanic related to you? You seem to share the same genes.

[Jayhawk Bill]

Look' date=' I think that because Lawton contributed negatively to the Yankees you cannot consider it a win for the Yankees. You disagree. Neither of us, at this point, are going to change our opinions on this particular trade. I really don't think there's a point to continuing to discuss this particular trade.[/quote']

 

Acquiring a player useful in MLB for a player destined never to approach MLB--for a player destined for mediocrity in A+ and AA and embarrassment in AAA--is a win.

 

Not a great win, not a massive win, not a crowning achievement, not a slam-dunk, but a win...maybe a tactical victory.

 

Still a win.