Looking Back at Tex

[jacksonianmarch]

a proven playoff horse? I guess Andy Pettitte would fit in that category. But there are only a few "playoff horses" around. Hell, some of the best pitchers in baseball arent playoff horses. Roy Halladay, possibly the best pitcher in baseball, hasnt even been to the playoffs

[yankees228]

That you can't blame FO for the Yankees not winning a WS the last 8 years.

 

The playoffs are a crapshoot, and continued success in them is not sustainable.

 

However, spending the amount of money they spend you'd think they get one in 7 tries.

 

The Yankees success in the regular season is much more indicative of how well the Yankees front office has done than the lack of success in the postseason.

 

And, as I mentioned, when you make statements about the last 8 years, you should go all the way back to 1995, when the postseason run started. If those four championships had been more spread out, which easily could have happened, you would be singing a completely different tune. Four championships in thirteen postseasons is a much more reasonable way to look at it than no championships in the last seven postseasons.

[Keeper]

You can and should blame the FO.

 

Carl Pavano

Kevin Brown

Jaret Wright

Kei Igawa

Randy Johnson

Jose Contreras

 

Johann Santana

[Dipre]

The Yankees success in the regular season is much more indicative of how well the Yankees front office has done than the lack of success in the postseason.

 

And, as I mentioned, when you make statements about the last 8 years, you should go all the way back to 1995, when the postseason run started. If those four championships had been more spread out, which easily could have happened, you would be singing a completely different tune. Four championships in thirteen postseasons is a much more reasonable way to look at it than no championships in the last seven postseasons.

 

We'd be singing a dfferent tune if the Yankee FO had managed to assemble a team without such visible pitching holes for the last 6 years.

[yankees228]

You can and should blame the FO.

 

Carl Pavano

Kevin Brown

Jaret Wright

Kei Igawa

Randy Johnson

Jose Contreras

 

Johann Santana

 

This is great. You're looking at it right now, knowing how each one of these guys fared. That's not fair. You have to look at it from when they acquired each one of these guys.

 

So many different teams wanted Carl Pavano. I was thrilled when they got Carl Pavano. I understand that he didn't have the most lengthy track record, but he had a chance to be really good for a long time. On top of this, which I don't care about but obviously some do, he already had postseason success.

 

Kevin Brown was a reactionary move to the losing Andy Pettitte, and one they probably shouldn't have made. However, they didn't give up much. For what it's worth, the Yankees went 2-1 in Brown's postseason starts (he got the win in one of them), and his only loss came on 3 days rest.

 

Jaret Wright - bad move

 

Kei Igawa - bad move

 

Randy Johnson was coming off great season after great season after great season. On top of that, he was really good in 2005. In my opinion, you cannot blame them for Johnson. Yes, he pitched poorly in his two playoff starts, but people also forget the outstanding job he did out of the bullpen in the fifth game of the 2005 ALDS on 1 day rest. Oh, and when they got Randy Johnson, I would say he had a fair amount of postseason success.

 

Jose Contreras was supposed to be really good, and even though they spent a lot of money on him, it was really low risk high reward (considering he wasn't even slated to be a starter coming of spring training in 2003). This was a guy who the Red Sox wanted so badly. This is not another example of Kei Igawa, who other teams were baffled at what the Yankees did to get him. Contreras also showed his potential for the White Sox in 2005, and was one of the big reasons they won the World Series that year. Obviously Contreras didn't really work out for the Yankees, but he was a very talented pitcher who, in my opinion, you cannot blame the Yankees for signing.

 

Johan Santana - mistake

[yankees228]

We'd be singing a dfferent tune if the Yankee FO had managed to assemble a team without such visible pitching holes for the last 6 years.

 

The 2003 team, six years ago, had a great rotation. As for the next five years, yeah there were mistakes. But those teams made the postseason, and definitely could have won the World Series.

[CrespoBlows]

That you can't blame FO for the Yankees not winning a WS the last 8 years.

 

The playoffs are a crapshoot, and continued success in them is not sustainable.

 

However, spending the amount of money they spend you'd think they get one in 7 tries.

 

Why does it have to be one or the other?

 

The Yankees could have done more to improve their starting rotation, but that wouldn't have guaranteed a title.

[Keeper]

Was Pavano really that sought after? He had 1 good season out of 7 before coming to the Yankees. But I guess your FO knew more than everybody else...

 

You know something? You're right. They didn't give up much to get Brown. What's 15.5 million a year?

 

They were all bad moves, any way you slice it. Pavano, Igawa, Brown, and Wright were bad signings even without retrospect. They got a little unlucky with Johnson and Contreras. Some guys can't pitch in New York, though. Letting Santana go was embarrassing.

[Dipre]

Why does it have to be one or the other?

 

The Yankees could have done more to improve their starting rotation, but that wouldn't have guaranteed a title.

 

My point is.

 

Had they had real good pitching, when/if they got beat in the playoffs, then you could've said:

 

"I mean, look, they had outstanding pitching and a solid offense, they only lost because post-season is a crapshoot."

 

The argument doesn't hold as much water when a team is visibly flawed.

[a700hitter]

The 2003 team' date=' six years ago, had a great rotation. As for the next five years, yeah there were mistakes. But those teams made the postseason, and definitely could have won the World Series.[/quote']Coulda shoulda woulda. The mantra of losers. They didn't win the championship in any of those years or in this century,

[yankees228]

Was Pavano really that sought after? He had 1 good season out of 7 before coming to the Yankees. But I guess your FO knew more than everybody else...

 

You know something? You're right. They didn't give up much to get Brown. What's 15.5 million a year?

 

They were all bad moves, any way you slice it.

 

Go back and read some articles about how sought after Pavano was when he was a free agent following the 2004 season. Judging by the comment you just made, I think you'd be surprised.

 

For Brown I meant in terms of players.

 

As for this all being bad moves, again, if you want to be fair, you need to go back to when they were acquired. The 20/20 hindsight proves nothing.

 

And, for what's it's worth, Randy Johnson was very productive in 2005, especially down the stretch when the Yankees were making their playoff run.

[yankees228]

Here's what it comes down to, none of the people posting here, besides Crespo, believes that the playoffs are a crapshoot. If you believe that the playoffs can be planned for, then we are too separated to further debate this point.

[Dipre]

Here's what it comes down to' date=' none of the people posting here, besides Crespo, believes that the playoffs are a crapshoot. If you believe that the playoffs can be planned for, then we are too separated to further debate this point.[/quote']

 

2007 Colorado Rockies.......enough said.

[yankees228]

My point is.

 

Had they had real good pitching, when/if they got beat in the playoffs, then you could've said:

 

"I mean, look, they had outstanding pitching and a solid offense, they only lost because post-season is a crapshoot."

 

The argument doesn't hold as much water when a team is visibly flawed.

 

There is no proven theory as to how to win in the postseason. No team is perfect. The Yankees had some strengths and some weaknesses in those years, but their strengths clearly outweighed their weaknesses.

[Keeper]

Here's what it comes down to' date=' none of the people posting here, besides Crespo, believes that the playoffs are a crapshoot. If you believe that the playoffs can be planned for, then we are too separated to further debate this point.[/quote']

 

Not true. The playoffs can be a crapshoot. Obviously, sometimes it's not the best team that wins: it's the hottest. The Cardinals' run in '06 proved that. At the same time, the postseason also weeds out the contenders from the pretenders. See the Cubs.

[Dipre]

There is no proven theory as to how to win in the postseason. No team is perfect. The Yankees had some strengths and some weaknesses in those years' date=' but their strengths clearly outweighed their weaknesses.[/quote']

 

Not when your weakness is pitching they don't.

[yankees228]

Not true. The playoffs can be a crapshoot. Obviously' date=' sometimes it's not the best team that wins: it's the hottest. The Cardinals' run in '06 proved that. At the same time, the postseason also weeds out the contenders from the pretenders. See the Cubs.[/quote']

 

The Cardinals were not hot at all going into the 2006 postseason. In fact, they were completely the opposite.

 

As for the Cubs, are you serious? It took a miracle for the 2003 Cubs not to win the NL pennant. The 2007 Cubs and the 2008 Cubs were good teams, with decent pitching, who just got outplayed in a short series. Again, it's a short series, weird things happen.

[yankees228]

Not when your weakness is pitching they don't.

 

Why did the Rockies make the World Series in 2007?

 

Why did the Angels win the World Series in 2002?

[Dipre]

Why did the Rockies make the World Series in 2007?

 

Why did the Angels win the World Series in 2002?

 

They were hot.

 

They were hot.

 

They also didn't have a $200 million payroll.

[Keeper]

The Cardinals were not hot at all going into the 2006 postseason. In fact, they were completely the opposite.

 

As for the Cubs, are you serious? It took a miracle for the 2003 Cubs not to win the NL pennant. The 2007 Cubs and the 2008 Cubs were good teams, with decent pitching, who just got outplayed in a short series. Again, it's a short series, weird things happen.

 

Playoff run in '06. Jesus.

 

I wasn't talking about the '03 Cubs. Outplayed is one thing. Swept in 2 consecutive postseasons by teams that didn't even make it to the World Series might be an indication that you're a pretender. There is certainly an element of luck in baseball, but let's not go crazy and say every time you lose a series you were unlucky or "weird things happened." That's B.S.

[yankees228]

They were hot.

 

They were hot.

 

They also didn't have a $200 million payroll.

 

The Angels had a good September, but they also had lost 8 of their last 13 games heading into the postseason.

 

The Yankees were also hot going into some of those postseasons. Doesn't necessarily mean you're going to win the World Series.

 

The Cardinals had a terrible September going into the 2006 postseason. They won the World Series.

 

The Yankees had a terrible September going into the 2000 postseason. They won the World Series.

[yankees228]

Playoff run in '06. Jesus.

 

I wasn't talking about the '03 Cubs. Outplayed is one thing. Swept in 2 consecutive postseasons by teams that didn't even make it to the World Series might be an indication that you're a pretender. There is certainly an element of luck in baseball, but let's not go crazy and say every time you lose a series you were unlucky or "weird things happened." That's B.S.

 

If they were hot going into the postseason I could understand the argument, but them suddenly getting hot once the postseason rolls around is simply a coincidence.

 

As for the Cubs, do you really think they were worse than the Diamondbacks in 2007, a team that had a Pythagorean W-L of 79-83?

[Keeper]

Coincidence? What the f*** are you talking about? You don't have to be hot going into the postseason to get hot during the postseason.

 

I watched the Cubs a lot more than you did. They were not a good team in '07. They were significantly better in '08.

[yankees228]

Coincidence? What the f*** are you talking about? You don't have to be hot going into the postseason to get hot during the postseason.

 

I watched the Cubs a lot more than you did. They were not a good team in '07. They were the benefactors of the weakest division in baseball. They were significantly better in '08.

 

Look, the Cardinals were not even a top 10 team in baseball in 2006. The Mets were so much better. It wasn't even close.

 

And no matter what you think of the 2007 Cubs, do you actually think they were worse than the Diamondbacks?

[Keeper]

Look, the Cardinals were not even a top 10 team in baseball in 2006. The Mets were so much better. It wasn't even close.

 

And no matter what you think of the 2007 Cubs, do you actually think they were worse than the Diamondbacks?

 

Hence the argument about getting hot at the right time. What don't you understand about this?

 

Yes.

[yankees228]

Hence the argument about getting hot at the right time. What don't you understand about this?

 

Yes.

 

Right, but it doesn't make them the best team. They weren't even close to the best team. Hence my argument of the best team not always winning, making the playoffs a crapshoot.

 

You actually think the Diamondbacks, a team with a pythagorean W-L of 79-83 (the allowed more runs that year than they scored!), was better than a team that outperformed their record?

[example1]

Lol, we're 1 game behind and you're talking like the Yankees just won the ALCS and are about to go to the WS.

 

 

Seriously.

 

Although the Yankees did play pretty well against the Sox this year and have kind of put them in their place so far...

[example1]

Here's what it comes down to' date=' [b']none of the people posting here, besides Crespo, believes that the playoffs are a crapshoot[/b]. If you believe that the playoffs can be planned for, then we are too separated to further debate this point.

 

Here's what it comes down to, you don't know that. The playoffs are a crapshoot, but they aren't an even-sum crapshoot. The teams with the better pitchers, the better bullpen and the better lineup has a better chance.

[Dipre]

After the 8 playoff seeds were selected, favorites to win the WS year-by-year since 2004:

 

2004: Red Sox, Yankees.

 

Winner: Red Sox.

 

2005: White Sox,Yankees.

 

Winner: White Sox.

 

2006: Detroit, Mets.

 

Winner: Cardinals.

 

2007: Red Sox, Guardians.

 

Winner: Red Sox.

 

2008:Red Sox, Angels, Rays.

 

Winner: Philadelphia.

 

It's a crap-shoot but some teams have a better chance.

[MANNYHOF24]

It's not just this year, though. When Lowell leaves, what then? When Youk starts to decline, what then?

 

Teixeira would have stabilized this lineup for a decade. Instead, he's going to hit 300 HRs in the Bronx.

 

This.