Hughes wins 5th starter slot, Joba to the pen

[Gom]

Gom's point' date=' IIRC was that the Sox had shown they could "win without money" as in without completely ravaging the FA market. In that context, most of the teams in the league spend a lot of money on the draft, but can't buy as many FA's as the Yanks and Sox. Take Oakland, Minnesota and Texas, for instance.[/quote']

 

I didn't make myself clear, although you raised an interesting point.

 

The Yankees have not shown an ability to compete when the field is somewhat even, as in the draft. What I meant by money is the fact that when it comes to free agency, whether international or regular off-season, the Yankees do very well because they have the most amount of money. It's a weighted system.

 

Now in the draft, you just can't outbid every other team. The Yankees were not going to get Strasburg, because the rules wouldn't allow them to sign him, he was eligible for the draft, and the Nationals got him.

 

What I'm trying to say is that the Yankees have not shown an ability to compete effectively when they are not able to use their dollars to buy their way.

I agree on that premise only due to their head start. Look at the guys they have in the majors...

 

2001- Kevin Youkilis, Kelly Shoppach

2002- Jon Lester, Brandon Moss

2003- David Murphy, Jon Papelbon

2004- Dustin Pedroia, Cla Meredith

2005- Clay Buchholz, Craig Hansen, Jed Lowrie, Jacoby Ellsbury, Michael Bowden

 

See, during that span, we drafted two players who are impact players (Hughes, AJax) and one guy who looks like he'll start in LF this yr for us (Gardner). The sox bumped up their scouting and drafting budget before we did and this is why they have a head start.

My point exactly...the Red Sox have accumulated four All-Stars in the span of five years. Did the Yankees have a shot at any of these players? Did other teams? Yes. The Red Sox superior scouting during this time frame cannot be denied.

Here are the yankee draft budget numbers from yesteryear...

 

2003- $3.8 mil

2004- $4.8 mil

2005- $3.7 mil

2006- $6.7 mil

2007- $8.0 mil

2008- $5.1 mil (remember, Gerrit Cole was pick #1 and was to be alotted about 5 mil to sign)

2009- $7.6 mil

This is misleading. As the Yankees sign free Type A & B free agents, they will forfeit high draft picks. As other teams sign their Type A & B players, they will sign more picks. This is assuming their picks are static, which they are not. The above table is utterley useless.

 

What I am saying is that without the benefit of money, the Yankee Front Office is below-average. They lack the ability [in comparison to the Red Sox] to scout and develop front-line players when the rules are somewhat competitive. Without the massive economic advantage, the Yankees can't compete.

 

Now...as a caveat...if Hughes turns into a bona-fide starter, and Joba becomes a lights-out reliever, etc., then I'll gladly change my tune. Until the Yankees prove to me by developing an All-Star through the draft, and not some bench player or 5th starter on the Pirates, I am not convinced.

[Keeper]

2008- $5.1 mil (remember' date=' Gerrit Cole was pick #1 and was to be alotted about 5 mil to sign)[/quote']

 

Looks like Cole was a good pick, even though he didn't sign. He had a great freshman season at UCLA and has been unhittable thus far this year. He's holding hitters to a .147 BA through 37 2/3 innings, 56 Ks.

[a700hitter]

Hughes only pitched 3 innings against Philly tonight giving up 1 run on 2 hits while striking out 5 and walking 4 and throwing 2 wild pitches.

[jacksonianmarch]

Looks like Cole was a good pick' date=' even though he didn't sign. He had a great freshman season at UCLA and has been unhittable thus far this year. He's holding hitters to a .147 BA through 37 2/3 innings, 56 Ks.[/quote']

 

Gerrit Cole is gonna be the first pick in the draft in 2011. He was throwing 99mph as an 18 yr old.

[yankees228]

Gom, Cashman has done a good job in the trade market, where money does play a role, but not as large a role as it does in the free agent market.

 

In that regard, they've certainly shown an ability to compete outside of free agency.

[Dipre]

Gom, Cashman has done a good job in the trade market, where money does play a role, but not as large a role as it does in the free agent market.

 

In that regard, they've certainly shown an ability to compete outside of free agency.

 

Their ability to "absorb" contracts has done a large percentage of Cashman's work for him in the trade market.

[yankees228]

Their ability to "absorb" contracts has done a large percentage of Cashman's work for him in the trade market.

 

But unlike 20 million dollar AAV contracts, for most of those trades, there are various other teams that could absorb those contracts.

 

EDIT: It's worth noting that Cashman has been so successful at the trade deadline that there used to be a very intelligent member (all but Gom will likely agree with the intelligent part) who was convinced the Yankees were cheating. I bring this up only to illustrate just how good a job Cashman has done in the trade market.

[Dipre]

But unlike 20 million dollar AAV contracts' date=' for most of those trades, there are various other teams that could absorb those contracts.[/quote']

 

Still reduces the playing field.

 

Take Bobby Abreu and Javier Vasquez, for instance.

[yankees228]

Still reduces the playing field.

 

Take Bobby Abreu and Javier Vasquez, for instance.

 

I didn't say every team, I said various other teams. If you take those two deals, for instance, there are, undoubtedly a number of other teams who have the financial ability to make those deals. At that point, amongst the teams who have the financial ability to make the deal, money becomes a small to non factor.

[Dipre]

I didn't say every team' date=' I said various other teams. If you take those two deals, for instance, there are, undoubtedly a number of other teams who have the financial ability to make those deals. At that point, amongst the teams who have the financial ability to make the deal, money becomes a small to non factor.[/quote']

 

You keep trying to minimize the advantage money gives the Yankees in the trade market as well.

 

If not for money issues, Bobby Abreu would have been a Red Sox.

 

Agree to disagree.

[yankees228]

You keep trying to minimize the advantage money gives the Yankees in the trade market as well.

 

If not for money issues, Bobby Abreu would have been a Red Sox.

 

Agree to disagree.

 

The Red Sox had the financial ability to trade for Abreu. They proved that the following offseason. Maybe they didn't think he was worth the price, but they could have made the trade.

 

I'm not trying to minimize anything. The only thing I'm doing is stating facts in an attempt to prove my point - which is that Cashman, and the Yankees' Front Office, deserves credit for success in the trade market where money isn't the end all be all (like it typically is in the free agent market).

[Dipre]

The Red Sox had the financial ability to trade for Abreu. They proved that the following offseason. Maybe they didn't think he was worth the price, but they could have made the trade.

 

I'm not trying to minimize anything. The only thing I'm doing is stating facts in an attempt to prove my point - which is that Cashman, and the Yankees' Front Office, deserves credit for success in the trade market where money isn't the end all be all (like it typically is in the free agent market).

 

Or maybe they gained more financial flexibility the following off-season and didn't have to take on Cory Lidle (RIP) to get the deal done.

 

Money's not the be-all, end-all on the trade market, but:

 

A) It helps. A lot.

 

B ) There are contracts the Yanks can absorb through trade that almost no other team can. That gives them an enormous adavantage when dealing with teams that want to move talent with inflated contracts.

 

C) Statement B a lot of the times also help in diminishing the talent going the other way.

 

Their financial muscle doesn't help them as much as the FA market. But it helps them a lot. That is fact.

[yankees228]

Or maybe they gained more financial flexibility the following off-season and didn't have to take on Cory Lidle (RIP) to get the deal done.

 

Money's not the be-all, end-all on the trade market, but:

 

A) It helps. A lot.

 

B ) There are contracts the Yanks can absorb through trade that almost no other team can. That gives them an enormous adavantage when dealing with teams that want to move talent with inflated contracts.

 

C) Statement B a lot of the times also help in diminishing the talent going the other way.

 

Their financial muscle doesn't help them as much as the FA market. But it helps them a lot. That is fact.

 

That's fair - not a lot to disagree.

 

All I'm really trying to say is that, in the free agent market, there isn't too much involved. However, in the trade market, there are a lot of variables. I don't give the Yankees' Front Office credit for acquiring guys like CC Sabathia, A.J. Burnett, and Mark Teixeira. However, while money helps in the trade market, I give the Yankees' Front Office credit because of the other things involved.

[yankees228]

As an example, I give them a lot of credit for this offseason. They didn't have a lot of financial flexibility (especially by Yankees' standards), and they had three glaring holes to fill. I think the Yankees' Front Office did about as good a job as you can ask, through two trades and one low-cost free agent signing.

 

Couple that with Chan Ho Park and Randy Winn (both of which I consider to be good low-cost acquisitions), and I think we witnessed a very good job by the Yankees' Front Office that didn't involve any huge contracts.

[Dipre]

They managed to absorb both Granderson's and Vasquez' commitment because their financial power allows them to, while possibly reducing the amount of talent needed to be sent the other way.

 

I say Cashman was masterful in the Granderson trade, but money helped them in the Vasquez one.

 

As for Winn and Park, like both signings, specially Winn, whose struggles hitting RH last year seem extremely fluky.

[yankees228]

They managed to absorb both Granderson's and Vasquez' commitment because their financial power allows them to, while possibly reducing the amount of talent needed to be sent the other way.

 

I say Cashman was masterful in the Granderson trade, but money helped them in the Vasquez one.

 

As for Winn and Park, like both signings, specially Winn, whose struggles hitting RH last year seem extremely fluky.

 

I agree that the Granderson and Vazquez acquisitions aren't something that all teams can do, so it's not an even playing field, but nothing is. There are a number of other teams that could have absorbed either of those contracts, but had no interest or weren't able to complete a trade.

 

I know you're giving Cashman credit for the Granderson acquisition, so I'm just reiterating the point that I was trying to prove with this example.

[Dipre]

I agree that the Granderson and Vazquez acquisitions aren't something that all teams can do, so it's not an even playing field, but nothing is. There are a number of other teams that could have absorbed either of those contracts, but had no interest or weren't able to complete a trade.

 

I know you're giving Cashman credit for the Granderson acquisition, so I'm just reiterating the point that I was trying to prove with this example.

 

Either. Not both. That's mainly the point.

[yankees228]

Either. Not both. That's mainly the point.

 

Vazquez is making 11.5 million dollars in 2010. Granderson is making 5.5 million dollars in 2010, 8.25 million dollars in 2011, 10 million dollars in 2012, and has a 13 million dollar club option in 2013 with a 2 million dollar buyout.

 

So that's a 17 million dollar commitment for 2010, a 8.25 million dollar commitment for 2011, a 10 million dollar commitment for 2012, and a 2 million dollar commitment for 2013. You really don't think there are a variety of other teams that are financially capable of making that commitment?

 

Here's the way I look at it. The Yankees did not have a ton of money to spend this offseason towards their 2010 payroll. They turned 25.05 million dollars into Curtis Granderson, Javier Vazquez, Nick Johnson, Chan Ho Park, and Randy Winn. In my opinion, that's fantastic.

[Dipre]

But not the main point of discussion.

 

I've never said their offseason wasn't good or they didn't improve. What i'm saying is, that when it comes to trading for talent, their financial advantage helps them, and being able to absorb both Vasquez' 2010 contract and what's left of Granderson's commitment is something that not many teams (possibly no other team this offseason) could have done.

 

I've already stated i liked the Park and Winn signings, but while neither Granderson or Vasquez were money dumps, it's unlikely for any other team to assume both commitments without at least trying to receive some money in return because of budget constraints.

[yankees228]

But not the main point of discussion.

 

I've never said their offseason wasn't good or they didn't improve. What i'm saying is, that when it comes to trading for talent, their financial advantage helps them, and being able to absorb both Vasquez' 2010 contract and what's left of Granderson's commitment is something that not many teams (possibly no other team this offseason) could have done.

 

I've already stated i liked the Park and Winn signings, but while neither Granderson or Vasquez were money dumps, it's unlikely for any other team to assume both commitments without at least trying to receive some money in return because of budget constraints.

 

How could no other team have absorbed those contracts? There are many teams this offseason that committed more than 17 million dollars to their 2010 payroll. Then there are various other teams that committed more than the Yankees did to their 2011, 2012, and 2013 payrolls.

 

I really don't see how your claim is accurate.

[Dipre]

How could no other team have absorbed those contracts? There are many teams this offseason that committed more than 17 million dollars to their 2010 payroll. Then there are various other teams that committed more than the Yankees did to their 2011, 2012, and 2013 payrolls.

 

I really don't see how your claim is accurate.

 

Not only the money, but sacrificing prospects.

 

If it's "only money" i can see logic in your claim, but when teams have to give up such a substantial amount of payroll flexibility and send young talent in return, then the scenery changes significantly. You also forget that a lot of teams who could have done well for themselves getting both those players (Anaheim and Saint Louis for example) were too tied up retaining their own talent to take on such a significant amount of payroll.

 

And just money-wise, without prospects involves, i bet than less 10 teams would have been able to absorb both contracts, and out of those 10 teams, at least two of three wouldn't have been able to commit the money and prospects while retaining their own players.

 

The claim is accurate, because when looking at it in the context of the schematics of the creation of a roster, not everyone has the flexibility to sacrifice prospects, spend money, sign FA's and retain their own talent.

 

The Yankees do, and it gives them a substantial advantage.

[Gom]

Gom, Cashman has done a good job in the trade market, where money does play a role, but not as large a role as it does in the free agent market.

 

In that regard, they've certainly shown an ability to compete outside of free agency.

 

He's done a decent job...not a good one.

 

Irrespective how Vasquez does, it was a great trade. Dipre, Vasquez's contract is very reasonable. It's not like they absorbed a bad contract there.

 

He's done a decent job in acquiring hitters, he's been putrid in trading for pitchers. I'd say he's done an average to above average job. Where I think he's excelled actually, is the waiver wire and waiver wire type deals [Gaudin, Chacon].

 

The fact that other teams are trading away money is not really his fault. However, the Yankee FO has not shown itself to be anywhere near as proficient as the Red Sox when it comes to the draft, and that is the part in which money plays the smallest role [trades, free agency, etc.].

[Dipre]

Don't put words in my mouth. I never said anything about absorbing a bad contract.

 

I talked about absorbing the entire contracts of Curtis Granderson and Javier Vasquez without asking for any financial aid from the other teams involved and how not many teams (probably no other team) can do that while retaining their own talent, signing FA's (even if they're cheap) and handling Arb issues.

[Gom]

Don't put words in my mouth. I never said anything about absorbing a bad contract.

 

I talked about absorbing the entire contracts of Curtis Granderson and Javier Vasquez without asking for any financial aid from the other teams involved and how not many teams (probably no other team) can do that while retaining their own talent, signing FA's (even if they're cheap) and handling Arb issues.

 

Javier Vazquez: 11.5 million

(Melky Cabrera): 2.6 million [3.1 million contract, Yankees kicked in 500K)

 

Granderson: $5.5 million, $8.25 million, $10 million

 

So...the Yankees got a very solid pitcher for 8.9 million for a one year rental. They picked up a very solid OF for three years, 28.75 million [2 million buyout not included].

 

No other team right? Let's see what the Red Sox did this off-season:

 

Lackey: 5 yr, 82.5 million

Beltre: 1 year, 10 million

Scutaro: 5.5 million [plus option]

Cameron: 2 yr, 15.5 million

 

Who exactly did the Red Sox lose? Wagner? Please..he was a two month rental, and you got two picks out of it. Bay was replaced by Lackey. You signed your free agents you wanted, and handled your arb issues. The Yankee payroll stayed about the same, with free agent defections being offset by the new acquisitions and contractual raises. The Red Sox increased their payroll by approximately 33%, bringing it to about 170 million...which is probably where it should be, not the $120 they were at for a long time.

 

You're talking [as usual with very little logic] in the Yankees ABSORBING contracts of very affordable players.

 

Would anyone rather have Lackey for 5 years for 82 million, or Vazquez for 1 year at 9 million? Anyone rather have Cameron for 15 million for 2 years, or Granderson for 3 years at 28 million? Anyone think that 3B with Beltre and Lowell is a bargain at 19 million?

 

It must really suck for Red Sox fans that their team is now spending like a big market team. It must make you think "If they are spending this money now...why didn't they spend it before?". It's what I've said all along...the Red Sox could, they simply chose not to.

 

The Yankees have a financial advantage over everyone. They haven't shown they can compete when things are relatively equal in the draft. The Red Sox have. That isn't even a debate in my mind. However, Dipre, you bringing up the Yankees moves this off-season, which were for the most part trades, in comparison to the Red Sox, who spent approximately 100 million on free agents...is, shall we say...a very weak argument.

[Dipre]

Now if you could learn to read and conceptualize, things would be so much easier.

 

Let me spell it out for you, so you can understand it:

 

The Yankees went out and got Javier Vasquez and Curtis Granderson not because they needed them after their WS victory, but rather to tweak the roster.

 

The Sox lost out on Bay and needed a counter-move, in came Lackey and Cameron, who were neccesities instead of luxuries. The word in bold being the key.

 

Now, after getting Cameron, Lackey, and sorting out the rest of the roster, do you think the Sox could have managed to add the salaries of Granderson and Vasquez without going over the luxury tax and completely s***ing on themselves?

 

I don't think so, because it wasn't possible. Logically, of course. Logic. Look at how pretty that word is.

 

Only the Yankees can afford to take gambles on a the lefty part of a platoon and a guy who got his ass kicked for years and makes a ton of money to slot in the #4 (#4!) rotation spot.

[yankees228]

Don't put words in my mouth. I never said anything about absorbing a bad contract.

 

I talked about absorbing the entire contracts of Curtis Granderson and Javier Vasquez without asking for any financial aid from the other teams involved and how not many teams (probably no other team) can do that while retaining their own talent, signing FA's (even if they're cheap) and handling Arb issues.

 

They didn't retain their own talent Matsui and Damon, which was one of the main reasons they were able to complete this transactions.

 

If you think that no other team (or only one or two teams) can absorb seventeen million dollars to their 2010 payroll (and the remainder of Granderson's contract), while sacrificing some decent prospects, then we'll have to agree to disagree. We're too far apart on this one.

 

However, looking back at this discussion, I think we're straying from the point. We're talking about how good a job Cashman has done in the trade market, so we have to look at each trade on an individual level. If you look at it that way, all of a sudden the amount (I think even you would agree) of teams with the ability to make the trade skyrockets.

[Dipre]

They didn't retain their own talent Matsui and Damon, which was one of the main reasons they were able to complete this transactions.

 

If you think that no other team (or only one or two teams) can absorb seventeen million dollars to their 2010 payroll (and the remainder of Granderson's contract), while sacrificing some decent prospects, then we'll have to agree to disagree. We're too far apart on this one.

However, looking back at this discussion, I think we're straying from the point. We're talking about how good a job Cashman has done in the trade market, so we have to look at each trade on an individual level. If you look at it that way, all of a sudden the amount (I think even you would agree) of teams with the ability to make the trade skyrockets.

 

Plus the prospects. If it's just money, then we might agree, but that's the real issue. For other, lesser teams, parting with talent and further tightening the budget is quite simply a risk they can't afford to take. They also signed Nick Johnsonn, and made a bunch of other (albeit smaller) transactions that is chump change for them but would've really weighed on a smaller-scale team.

[yankees228]

Now if you could learn to read and conceptualize, things would be so much easier.

 

Let me spell it out for you, so you can understand it:

 

The Yankees went out and got Javier Vasquez and Curtis Granderson not because they needed them after their WS victory, but rather to tweak the roster.

 

The Sox lost out on Bay and needed a counter-move, in came Lackey and Cameron, who were neccesities instead of luxuries. The word in bold being the key.

 

Now, after getting Cameron, Lackey, and sorting out the rest of the roster, do you think the Sox could have managed to add the salaries of Granderson and Vasquez without going over the luxury tax and completely s***ing on themselves?

 

I don't think so, because it wasn't possible. Logically, of course. Logic. Look at how pretty that word is.

 

Only the Yankees can afford to take gambles on a the lefty part of a platoon and a guy who got his ass kicked for years and makes a ton of money to slot in the #4 (#4!) rotation spot.

 

I completely disagree that these moves were luxuries. The Yankees let their number two and number five hitters walk. They needed to replace the offense.

 

The Yankees realized that they can't expect to win another championship with a three man rotation (and that they might see significant drop off from Pettitte), so they needed another reliable starter (especially to compete with Boston's rotation).

[Dipre]

I'm going to go ahead and ask for either of Y228 or Gom to come up with a plausible scenario where other teams, after addressing their own needs and taking into account arbitration raises, can have the luxury of adding both Granderson and Vasquez without taking money back, and giving up talent on the same scale the Yankees did.

[Dipre]

I completely disagree that these moves were luxuries. The Yankees let their number two and number five hitters walk. They needed to replace the offense.

 

The Yankees realized that they can't expect to win another championship with a three man rotation (and that they might see significant drop off from Pettitte), so they needed another reliable starter (especially to compete with Boston's rotation).

 

Vasquez is still just the #4 starter. And Granderson was a move made to get "younger". They didn't "lose" Matsui and Damon to FA. They let them walk. Completely different scenarios.