Why the youth movement is OVERRATED...

[jacksonianmarch]

Therein lies the point ORS. Gom is incapable of seeing anything past this one season. He's shortsighted. Something that killed this franchise for yrs in the 80s and early 90s. Only after a long term approach did we ascend back into glory. Unfortunately, Gom isnt very good with history.

[German_Sox]

Phil Hughes, Ian Kennedy and Clay Buchholz are 2-17 with a 7.52 ERA. They’ve thrown only 137.2 innings.

 

If either of our teams were willing to give up just ONE of these guys in a package, one of us would have Johan.

 

Thank you Cashman for costing us a playoff spot with your stupidity.

 

Red Sox fans can thank Theo for NOT winning the division and having to face the Angels in a best of 5.

 

redsox own the angels like 9 straight in playoffs who says minnesota or yankees dont get it over us though?

 

epstein put together 2 championship teams a division title and a exciting product for the fans to look foward to nightly

 

youkilis pedroia lowrie ellsbury lester papelbon dicek and beckett must not count he also traded for arod that fell apart and he traded scrubs to arizona for schilling

 

you make it sound like he built the royals in boston errors left and right or perhaps oakland billy bean gets all this credit what the fucc as he ever won?

[Cocos Disciples]

Err you can't credit Theo for almost trading for ARod...

[Gom]

Just because they won't bottom out doesn't mean I think they'll be any good. The Mets are staring at a few years to "trying to find the right mix" IMO after this year. And nice try with Church over Milledge. Sure, if you only look at their rates, Church is better, but that better is kind of worthless if it's hurt all the time. Milledge has created 52 runs to Church's 40 this year. Oh, and Milledge is 23 and getting better by the month. He's realizing his talent. Church is 29 and at the peak of his career. Thank you for including this example of why you take your lumps and see what you've got with a kid. The Mets cornholed themselves in this trade in terms of future value, but they appear to be going for it now, so this is OK for them........if Church takes the field.

 

 

This is the $$ point again. Everyone agrees the larger market clubs should, and will, flex their financial muscle to fill gaps. Stop going off on this tangent, it doesn't address the core disagreement, which is the trading of multiple top-prospects and/or promising young players for an established star. Strawman special.

 

 

I'm pretty sure I acknoledged that they did it, how could I not while addressing the specifics? I also happened to look at more than what shows up on the transacation page at MLB.com. This move was a good move by the Brewers. They gave up a player with no spot to play. For other teams, it's a different calculus. Stop ignoring this.

 

 

No. Why do I have to limit my consideration to this year only? If that's all you care about, fine, but don't expect me to agree.

The whole point is not which system is better. You can't really argue against building homegrown talent in the long run. However, stop being like Jacko and JHB and don't look at things in a vacuum. The very fact of the fiscal power that the Yankees, Red Sox, and Mets have allows them to do both. If you can't see it, then you are truly ignorant about the economics of baseball.

 

When you state the core agreement, we fundamentally disagree. I believe in veterans, you believe in prospects. Let's agree to disagree, so as not to go back and forth.

 

Money is the overriding factor. The very aspect of money is actually what allows your team and mine to make this work. Many players, such as Hughes for us, have fallen into our laps when they rightfully shouldn't have because they would have demanded more money than the teams drafting ahead of us would be willing to afford. I refuse to believe that you are as ignorant as some others here to think that money hasn't also given us a huge advantage in scouting/development/drafting as well as in the free agent/trading market at the big league level.

 

You're not going to win every deal. No one does. However, I believe that trading prospects for veterans benefits the teams in the short run most definitely, and usually in the long run as well. When you include the money aspect, the ability to outdraft your opponents and fix the mistakes you make in trading/free agents, it becomes a no-brainer.

 

Gom is an idiot' date=' once again, a tried and true idiot. That is all.[/quote']

Go back to sleep. Seriously. Learn to read. I said why not do both? It's always one way or another. Always an extreme with you, and you lack the ability to see how a mix is better than either end of the spectrum. Should we forego all free agents and trades, and build a team with nothing but homegrown talent? No more than we should eschew the drafting/development side and sign every aging free agent available. A healthy mix, is best. When including money as a factor, we should skew towards the now instead of the tomorrow, since we have the financial resources to fix the errors we do make. Same goes with the Red Sox and Mets.

 

It's people like you, with this thinking, that have put the Yankees in this fix. When you finally get your head out of your ass, come to talk me. Better yet, leave yourself out of this conversation Jacko. This is a big league discussion, for people who understand the game. Go back to the minors, where you belong.

[CrespoBlows]

The whole point is not which system is better. You can't really argue against building homegrown talent in the long run.

 

That's what I am trying to say. Did the Red Sox really need to part with five players for Santana? Lester is pitching better than Santana, and he's getting better. The starting rotation was not a glaring hole to be filled, and three of the players in the deal are major contributors this year.

 

However, stop being like Jacko and JHB and don't look at things in a vacuum. The very fact of the fiscal power that the Yankees, Red Sox, and Mets have allows them to do both. If you can't see it, then you are truly ignorant about the economics of baseball.

 

The Red Sox already are. They spent $10 million on the draft in 2008, and made big splashes in the international market in 2007. The Yankees have failed in 2008, so I understand why you're pissed.

 

When you state the core agreement, we fundamentally disagree. I believe in veterans, you believe in prospects. Let's agree to disagree, so as not to go back and forth.

 

There is something wrong with your ability to reason, if you believe that this is what ORS really thinks.

 

 

 

You're not going to win every deal. No one does. However, I believe that trading prospects for veterans benefits the teams in the short run most definitely, and usually in the long run as well. When you include the money aspect, the ability to outdraft your opponents and fix the mistakes you make in trading/free agents, it becomes a no-brainer.

 

Not true.

 

When you give up a significant amount of talent for one player, you also have to fill their holes with someone else, which means more money and probably a player of lesser talent.

 

Consider the Santana deal again. The Red Sox would have to fill the holes left by Masterson and Lowrie. Cora would most likely be Lowrie's replacement, which would be a big downgrade offensively, and a downgrade defensively. The loss of Masterson would be crushing, as he gave the Red Sox well above average starts when he needed to be plugged in. He's also been pitching great out of the bullpen, when the rest of the bullpen has been absent this month. I mean, we could fill holes with veterans, but that would mean more prospects for players who wouldn't be producing as highly as our prospects on the roster right now.

 

You also have to factor in that Santana has a $20 million price tag. That would severely reduce roster flexibility. Without Lowrie or Masterson, the Red Sox would be looking at filling the 8th inning role, and the starting SS position, with consideribly less money to spend. Unless you believe Lugo is a competent starting SS. The additional payroll the Red Sox have by not trading Santana, will allow them to keep Jon Lester, Jed Lowrie, Justin Masterson, and Ryan Kalish. (Coco Crisp, too) The best part about the no-deal? They have $20 million to throw around on free agents.

 

BTW, I have to call ******** on Gom touting himself on trading Buchholz instead of Lester. Lester couldn't locate a fastball to save his ass. Buchholz had just thrown a no-hitter, and was rated a top prospect by every major publication.

 

Hindsight is 20/20.....

[Gom]

I was hoping you'd trade Lester instead of Buchholz. Don't forget, I'm a Yankee fan.

[rician blast]

They wanted Buchholz. Their final package would have included Buchholz and not Lester. Redo the numbers with Buchholz instead of Lester.

 

This is purely speculation. No one knows what the ultimate asking price was. Many rumors had Lester as the key pitcher coming back to the Twins. There is absolutely no way to be sure they wanted Buchholz over Lester.

 

Once again, because of the Yankees, Red Sox, and Mets significant advantages in money, they have the ability to do both, both build from within while using their financial advantage to compete in the free agent/trade market.

 

You've touched on an earlier point I made with your use of the word "ability." As I said, the Sox may have the ability to take on the risk of a contract like Santana's and the ability to absorb the hit if he falters...but I fear they do not have the WILLINGNESS to take that hit...and if the chips fell such that Santana, or any other pitcher signed to a big deal, busted, potentially they would pull back and not be competetive for a few years as they regroup and recover.

 

 

You really think you're a better team this year with Masterson, Buchholz, and Ellsbury than Santana?

 

You are cherry-picking here, assuming that those three are the ultimate package when, at the same time the names you mention were rumored to be in a potential deal, so were the names Lester and Lowrie and Crisp and I think Delcarmen as well. Read Crespo's post regarding the holes that would have existed had this deal gone down, I think it offers some insight into the concerns that the Sox FO probably considered.

[TheKilo]

They wanted Buchholz. Their final package would have included Buchholz and not Lester. Redo the numbers with Buchholz instead of Lester.

 

The Mets won't hit bottom due to their spending power? THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT. My goodness, now that I know what a strawman is [i admit, I didn't know], I think I have a new name for you. It defeats the purpose if you can't stay in contention. Not only that, but they traded away Milledge for Church, and so far, that's a no-brainer as well. Church has outperformed Milledge in every sense of the game. You know what you don't see? That if they have a good draft this year and next, in three years, they're going to start to see those players having an effect on the majors! Am I destined to be surrounded by such tomfoolery?

 

Once again, because of the Yankees, Red Sox, and Mets significant advantages in money, they have the ability to do both, both build from within while using their financial advantage to compete in the free agent/trade market. Wherein drafting and scouting has more of an element of luck to it than with players at the major league level, the majority of the money should be allocated as such, while still having a final dollar value in scouting/development that should be higher than the rest of the competitors.

 

I'm not surprised you miss the point ORS. I'd be actually surprised had you gotten it.

 

The point is that the Brewers made the deal. The point is the Mets made the deal.

 

You really think you're a better team this year with Masterson, Buchholz, and Ellsbury than Santana?

 

The Ryan Church that hasn't played in a month due to concussion symptoms?

[Gom]

The reason I put in Church is because you don't always win. Church had better numbers, but then got hurt. That deal will end up hurting the Mets [i didn't really care for it, but hey...]. However, they went for the win this year, and they are a better team for the next 3 years with the deals they made. The Yankees and Sox are worse.

 

If you always won, there wouldn't be a debate. However, you guys are also failing to see that the risk was very small. Here is a Cy Young pitcher, young, healthy....it really didn't get much better than that.

[Gom]

Read this link.

 

http://www.northjersey.com/sports/mets/Yankees_played_a_big_hand_in_allowing_the_Mets_to_complete_a_trade_for_Johan_Santana.html

 

Yankee fans [with the exception of Jacko, who thinks everyone in our minor league system is God]....be careful. You will be sick with anger when you realize what Cashman turned down from the Twins. Red Sox fans, the final offer was Ellsbury, Masterson, and Lowrie, I believe.

 

Enjoy.

[a700hitter]

You will be sick with anger when you realize what Cashman turned down from the Twins. Red Sox fans' date=' the final offer was Ellsbury, Masterson, and Lowrie, I believe. [/quote']I don't think that is any secret. It was a mistake to not pull the trigger.

[ORS]

You know what's really funny? After the Twins got played, they didn't take him off the table and see what the season offered in terms of their playoff chances. Making the playoffs and getting the comp picks is better than the talent they received, and if there were out of it for some other reason, the returns for good pitchers at the deadline was better too. The team that dicked the dog the hardest on this was Minnesota, IMO.

[riverside sluggers]

Unless you're a braindead Yankee fan, in order for you to get superstar player, you're going to have to give up the gems. Once those gems come up to the big show, you need to replace them anyways. See, the thing is this...with a player like Youkilis....you don't need to worry about that position for 5 years at the minimum. It's not like you're expecting an impact player per year. Ok, look at guys the Red Sox gave up for Beckett and Lowell. The major jewel was Hanley. Was it worth it? Of course. Who's to say that when Hanley becomes a free agent, the Red Sox don't try to get him back?

 

It is easier to find gems than the finished product, ORS. Many of the so-called "gems" end up being nothing more than coal in your stockings. Not because I hate the Red Sox, but I hope the Sox miss the post-season by one game. Then I'll have all winter to tell you guys you f***ed up like we did.

 

Here's another way to look at it. The Yankees kept their crown jewels, and so did the Red Sox, when offered Santana. The Mets "bankrupted" their farm system to get Santana.

 

As of today, 8/22/08, the Yankees are a near-lock to miss the post-season for the first time since 1993. The Red Sox are battling it out with the White Sox/Twins for the right to lose to the Angels in the first round.

 

The Mets? With a depleted and decimated farm system?

 

First place.

 

The Mets gave up s*** to get Santana. The last proposed trade I heard the Red sox offered was Lester, crisp, masterson and lowrie. Eek... add $140 million for an extension and on top of that, Beckett's asking price just got even higher

 

The Red Sox are brain dead for not willing to push further?

[Gom]

The last proposed trade you list wasn't the last one.

 

Anyways, my point remains.

 

When given the opportunity, prospects should be sacrificed for veterans, and in no small part due to the big market teams ability to recompensate themselves quickly by throwing more money into drafting/scouting. The money aspect makes it a near lock as to what should be done. My opinion.

 

Want to change this? Make the draft world-wide, and have a set salary for slots. Otherwise, our teams will always be able to replenish quickly, both in the minor and major league areas.

 

If you trade prospects for veterans, you win most of the time. That much is obvious.

[jacksonianmarch]

The last deals proposed were as follows...

 

For the Sox.

 

Ellsbury or Lester, Lowrie, Masterson, Crisp

 

For the Yankees

 

Hughes, Melky, Marquez, and Hilligoss

 

I didnt have a problem with the last 3, but giving up Hughes plus paying 150 mil for a pitcher whose velocity was dipping was a problem IMO. Especially when Sabathia was gonna be on the market the following yr.

[jacksonianmarch]

Gom, again, you're stupid. Wishing to be in the Mets shoes is stupid. They have one good starter, they wont win the title, and their future is ABYSMAL. You can restock your farm in a few yrs, this is true, but for every draft, you have to give it 3-4 yrs for it to bear any fruit. And for your dominican and INTL signees, you need 5-6. So therefore, even if the Mets drafted EXTREMELY WELL and signed all their prospects, their farm wouldnt be "fruitful" for 3-4 yrs. The deals they made this offseason essentially guaranteed them a shot at it THIS yr. Their pen is awful. They have one reliable starter and the rest are either injured (chronically) or free agents who will walk. The C position is a joke, their 1b is going back to the AL next yr, their 2b is on the DL every other week, and they tried to get by with Moises Alou in LF (nice idea). Plus, they gutted the entire farm for Santana and the one kid they retained, Martinez, is a LOOOOOONG way off production wise. Next yr, the Mets wont be a playoff team and for the next 2-3 yrs they'll be terrible. So wishing to be in their shoes for a one shot deal, that looks like a poor shot IMO, is a dumb thing to advocate for. But then again, you are advocating, so fire away

[a700hitter]

You know what's really funny? After the Twins got played' date=' they didn't take him off the table and see what the season offered in terms of their playoff chances. Making the playoffs and getting the comp picks is better than the talent they received, and if there were out of it for some other reason, the returns for good pitchers at the deadline was better too. The team that dicked the dog the hardest on this was Minnesota, IMO.[/quote']Most definitely, and the Mets reaped the benefit.

[a700hitter]

Gom' date=' again, you're stupid. Wishing to be in the Mets shoes is stupid. They have one good starter, they wont win the title, and their future is ABYSMAL. You can restock your farm in a few yrs, this is true, but for every draft, you have to give it 3-4 yrs for it to bear any fruit. And for your dominican and INTL signees, you need 5-6. So therefore, even if the Mets drafted EXTREMELY WELL and signed all their prospects, their farm wouldnt be "fruitful" for 3-4 yrs. The deals they made this offseason essentially guaranteed them a shot at it THIS yr. Their pen is awful. They have one reliable starter and the rest are either injured (chronically) or free agents who will walk. The C position is a joke, their 1b is going back to the AL next yr, their 2b is on the DL every other week, and they tried to get by with Moises Alou in LF (nice idea). Plus, they gutted the entire farm for Santana and the one kid they retained, Martinez, is a LOOOOOONG way off production wise. Next yr, the Mets wont be a playoff team and for the next 2-3 yrs they'll be terrible. So wishing to be in their shoes for a one shot deal, that looks like a poor shot IMO, is a dumb thing to advocate for. But then again, you are advocating, so fire away[/quote']You do realize that the Mets are in first place? You do realize that Pedro is their number 4 or 5 starter? You do realize that a lot of money will be coming off their payroll, e.g. Delgado and Pedro making Texiera and Sabathia or Sheets perfect fits. Put them on a team with young stars like Reyes, Wright, Beltran, and Santana and they have a pretty formidible contender for years to come. Do the Yankees have any young established stars other than ARod?

[Gom]

Read this link. Jacko would rather be in last place with a good farm system than in first place with a s***** one. It's just the way he is. I can see why you guys keep him around. Trust me, he is not indicative of the intelligent Yankee fan.

 

Jacko, the last deal had Kennedy in it, not Hughes. Follow the link dude.

http://www.northjersey.com/sports/mets/Yankees_played_a_big_hand_in_allowing_the_Mets_to_complete_a_trade_for_Johan_Santana.html

 

Umm..it's the same link I listed before in this thread. Try reading it this time.

 

Would I rather be the Mets? No. Would I rather have traded for Santana instead of the Mets? Yes.

 

Wanna know something? Kennedy, Hughes, Melky and a prospect....plus the 130+ million....is still a steal for us. Your "crown jewel" would have stayed. Wake up.

 

I pray you stop self-medicating.

[CrespoBlows]

Gom' date=' again, you're stupid. Wishing to be in the Mets shoes is stupid. They have one good starter, they wont win the title, and their future is ABYSMAL. You can restock your farm in a few yrs, this is true, but for every draft, you have to give it 3-4 yrs for it to bear any fruit. And for your dominican and INTL signees, you need 5-6. So therefore, even if the Mets drafted EXTREMELY WELL and signed all their prospects, their farm wouldnt be "fruitful" for 3-4 yrs. The deals they made this offseason essentially guaranteed them a shot at it THIS yr. Their pen is awful. They have one reliable starter and the rest are either injured (chronically) or free agents who will walk. The C position is a joke, their 1b is going back to the AL next yr, their 2b is on the DL every other week, and they tried to get by with Moises Alou in LF (nice idea). Plus, they gutted the entire farm for Santana and the one kid they retained, Martinez, is a LOOOOOONG way off production wise. Next yr, the Mets wont be a playoff team and for the next 2-3 yrs they'll be terrible. So wishing to be in their shoes for a one shot deal, that looks like a poor shot IMO, is a dumb thing to advocate for. But then again, you are advocating, so fire away[/quote']

 

What the f*** are you talking about?

 

The Mets didn't give up anyone in that deal. Gomez is f***ing awful, and the rest of those pitchers aren't any good, either.

 

You make that deal 10/10 times.

[riverside sluggers]

I think the Phillies stand a good chance of overtaking the Mets for the division in september... again

 

-- 13 out of their last 24 games are at home

 

-- Half of the 24 games in September are against Atlanta and Washington

[CrespoBlows]

That's cool, except that the Mets have 15 of their last 25 at home, and they play Washington and Atlanta 12 more times, too.

[rician blast]

If you're very comfortable that the team you follow will continually do whatever it takes to be a contender, than I suppose you'll want them to make these big deals, regardless of the risk. When they work out, it's obviously huge in terms of today. When they don't you're assuming the team will simply make other big moves in order to contend, regardless of how it taxes the farm system or the team's financial resources.

 

If, however, you fear that your team has limits in terms of spending and trading away young players, you're more likely to view long-term contracts for big dollars with a bit more skepticism.

 

I think the Sox FO attempts to balance financial issues (maintaining some sort of salary structure and cost certainty while providing its investors an ROI) with winning. Epstein has stated in the past that the team's philosophy is that they can contend 6 or 7 out of every 10years. Those 3 or 4 years where they acknowledge they may not contend are for strengthening the farm system, re-tooling the roster, etc. When there are big $ signings that don't work out, the organization with a philosophy as stated above will not totally abandon their philosophy...something has to give and that something very well could be competetiveness. With this view of the organization, it is totally understandable for a fanbase to want the team to exercise caution when considering trading young talent for proven success when the price tag is so high.

 

There is no right or wrong, none of these deals are no brainers and to understand why an organization does or doesn't go through with a big signing one would really have to be in the know regarding every aspect of the potential deal. We're not in that postion so we do our best to speculate, evaluate and discuss..and that's the best we can do.

 

Back to the deal at hand, considering all I've said above, I applaud the Sox FO for not jumping at Santana if the deal wasn't in keeping with their long and short-term plans. I also think that sometimes FO feel pressed to appease the masses and make a move to excite the fans (see Mets signing of Pedro Martinez, cited by many as the Mets trying to put a big name on the team as they move toward opening a new stadium in the near future and the launch of SNY). Perhaps the fact that so many Sox fans "get it" minimized that variable in terms of the Red Sox considering Santana?

[Gom]

Great post, rician. Except for one thing. If you were 10.5 games out instead of us, would RSN feel the same way? I doubt it.

 

If Theo said what you said, then the Yankees should compete 10 years out of 10 due to the fiscal advantages we have. The Yankees money should allow them to outspend the competition in the three years the Red Sox would be unable to. It's kind of simple logic, don't you think?

[rician blast]

Great post' date=' rician. Except for one thing. If you were 10.5 games out instead of us, would RSN feel the same way? I doubt it.[/quote']

 

Yes, I would. I base my opinion on the deal, or in this case the non-deal, on what I knew at the time, not on what happens after.

 

An example I can think of is when the Sox let Roger Clemens walk. Based on the money he was asking for and the fact that he had gone 40-39 over the prior four seasons, I thought he was done. Clearly he proved that wasn't the case. Ask me now what I thought of not re-signing him and I'd say it was the right move.

 

If Theo said what you said, then the Yankees should compete 10 years out of 10 due to the fiscal advantages we have. The Yankees money should allow them to outspend the competition in the three years the Red Sox would be unable to. It's kind of simple logic, don't you think?

 

 

I think you have a point IF it is the Yankees philosophy that they're going for it every year and intend to outspend everyone by $70-$80 million and be willing to sacrifice the farm system to some extent. Let's face it, farm systems have evolved, to a degree, into trade bait...perhaps they always have been. I don't think it's solely an issue of being ABLE to spend, but more being willing to spend. But yes, if the Yankees are able AND willing to spend whatever it takes to win, then they should be a contender every year...so does maybe the fact that they didn't make a deal for Santana say that there are other considerations in their decision making process?

 

FYI, I looked to see if I could find the articles in which the 7 of 1o yrs. statements were made. Best I could find is where Larry Lucchino said he thinks the Sox can contend 8 out of 10, and Theo warned that the team might occasionally have to step back from that goal :

 

"You’ve got to keep your eyes on both goals,” Lucchino said. “You can’t go for broke without some longer term perspective and you can’t have a longer term perspective, particularly in Boston, without some kind of annual focus on getting to the postseason. We have to operate on both dimensions every year, and I think we have. There’s a lot of focus on what we’ve done at the major league level and our post-season success and all that but if you look below the surface, we’ve had a pretty good couple of drafts the last couple of years. And commitments to player development.”

 

"That was Lucchino talking, not Epstein. It’s true that Epstein warned of the possibility of needing to take half a step back before the team could take a step forward."

[ORS]

The very fact of the fiscal power that the Yankees' date=' Red Sox, and Mets have allows them to do both. If you can't see it, then you are truly ignorant about the economics of baseball.[/quote']

No, it doesn't allow them to do both, and here's why. You draft about 50 kids a year, 25 of them sign, 5 of them progress enough to look like they deserve a big league shot, if you are lucky, more than 1 gets rated a top-prospect 2 to 3 years down the road. Now when you trade for an established star, you are expected to give up 2 or 3 of these guys. That's 2 or 3 years of drafts to trade for one guy. You can't continually do this type of trading.

 

Hopefully, things work out like they are for the Mets and Santana right now, but do they always? Not really, in fact I'd say it's 50/50. Look at your recent trades for star pitchers. Jeff Weaver was an up and coming star, so the Yankees had to get him, just had to. Sucked, so they trade him away to get someone better, much better, multiple Cy Young winner, top-5 pitcher in baseball. Yeah, Kevin Brown, he was stellar in NY. Next year? Javy Vazquez is the s***. Look at how ridiculous he is, let's get him. Game 7 goat.

 

This is the risk of the strategy you propose. You are all happy to jump right in and be the soothsayer about how this is the way to go, there's nothing to worry about, but the fact is there's huge risk involved here. And the cost is potentially multiple years of your drafting for each time you do it. Look at who the Yankees could have kept in lieu of those suckbags. Ted Lilly, no great shakes but an effective pitcher in the AL East, Dionner Navarro, the best starting catcher in the AL East this year, Nick Johnson, would have been nice to have him around when he was healthy and Giambi was out with a "parasite", and Juan Rivera. Plus, let's not forget what the goal was here all along, to win a championship, which a) hasn't happened despite these moves, and is probably more likely if none of them are made.

[Gom]

You make a strong point ORS. I hate to admit it, but you really do.

 

However, I think overall, the strategy works better though for a big market team. We can go get a Weaver, a Brown, a Vazquez, an RJ. Just keep going at it till you get one that works. For everyone of those we get, we get a Clemens, a Key, a Justice, a Wells, an Abreu, an Arod.

 

I see your point...but the Yankees wouldn't have been even close had we not made those deals. Like I said, a mix works best, but your point is well made.

[Mr Crunchy]

ss is a position that theo replaces yearly

he couldve had ocab stay,he didnt offer him a nickel

theyres about 27M in wasted shortstop money since we signed renteria and plugged lowrie in...

[rician blast]

A lot of this thread has touched on the lack of a deal by the Yanks and Sox for Santana.

 

The Mets needed a big performance out of their ace last night. Did they get a huge, September-like performance from him? I'm not sure, didn't see the game, but the stat line looks decent. While the BP held on, given their BP issues, I'm not sure 6 innings is what they were looking for from Johan.

 

So would you guys call this a big money game by Santana?

[Mr Crunchy]

santana doesnt seem to be as good as he once was.

imagine the twins keeping liriano in AAA thru june while theyre battling for a pennant??

gardenhire must be considered the best manager in the game