Hughes wins 5th starter slot, Joba to the pen

[yankees228]

Plus the prospects. If it's just money' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

It was 25 million dollars, all of which had come off the books from the previous year, plus some decent (far from sure things) prospects (also remember that they will likely turn Vazquez into a couple decent prospects). If the Yankees had done that in addition to retaining their talent then I would agree with you, but at the outset of the offseason, I believe about half of the teams were definitely capable of making these additions.

[yankees228]

I'm going to go ahead and ask for either of Y228 or Gom to come up with a plausible scenario where other teams' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

I think this is where we're really disagreeing. These moves were replacing what they already had. This was how they addressed their needs. I don't understand why you're acting like this isn't the case.

[Dipre]

I think this is where we're really disagreeing. These moves were replacement from what they already had. This was how they addressed their needs. I don't understand why you're acting like this isn't the case.

 

Allow me to illustrate what i mean:

 

Let's take the Saint Louis Cardinals, for instance.

 

They were a team that after losing Rick Ankiel and Joel Pineiro to FA, could have had a use for both Granderson (they're starting Colby Rasmus in CF) and Vasquez (Brad Penny, seriously?).

 

They re-signed Matt Holliday.

 

They signed Penny.

 

They still have gaping holes in CF and SP, but just don't have the money to budget in the "cheap" contracts of Granderson and Vasquez. Why? Because they don't operate under the same premise of "budget" that the Yankees have. No one does. I don't understand why the claim is so outrageous.

 

I could make a similar analysis for 15-18 other teams who needed an OF and a SP, but didn't have the money or the money/prospects combination to get both deals done. Why? Because everybody else operates under a different budget structure than the Yankees. That's the reality of it. 17 million dollars and a group of prspects is solid gold to most teams.

[yankees228]

I don't see what that proves. The Yankees' payroll did not increase (I don't know the exact numbers, if it increased, it was marginal). With the money that came off the books, they replaced things that they needed. Any way you slice it these moves were necessities.

 

I don't see how when one team replaces its cleanup hitter with a front end starter, an outfielder, and a third basemen it was done out of necessity, but when another team replaces its number two hitter and number five hitter with an outfielder, a DH, and a middle of the rotation starting pitcher it was just a luxury.

 

As for losing free agents versus letting them walk, where does Damon fall in? Damon wanted more than the Yankees offered, so he left.

[yankees228]

And the Cardinals could have done what the Yankees did, but they went a different route. Just like the Yankees could have done what the Cardinals did, but they went a different route. Both were capable of doing what the other did.

[Dipre]

I don't see what that proves. The Yankees' payroll did not increase (I don't know the exact numbers, if it increased, it was marginal). With the money that came off the books, they replaced things that they needed. Any way you slice it these moves were necessities.

 

I don't see how when one team replaces its cleanup hitter with a front end starter, an outfielder, and a third basemen it was done out of necessity, but when another team replaces it's number two hitter and number five hitter with an outfielder, a DH, and a middle of the rotation starting pitcher it was just a luxury.

 

As for losing free agents versus letting them walk, where does Damon fall in? Damon wanted more than the Yankees offered, so he left.

 

Most of the teams in the league don't have nearly 20 million dollars of payroll flexibility even after losing some of their players.

 

But don't concentrate on the cool amount of money only. What about the prospects?

 

See, this is the real hold-up of the issue. And this point has been ignored to this point.

 

The Yankees, could have, for around the same amount of money, kept Matsui and Damon. So no, Granderson was not a necessity, but a move to get younger. You can possibly make that argument about Vasquez, but his salary, while affordable, is not cheap, and they had other options.

 

But not only did they spend a similar amount of money, they sent over a number of prospects. The real advantage is in being able to create a combination of both, while absorbing full contracts that gives them a two-pronged advantage.

 

1) Allows them to lessen the actual amount of prospects needed.

 

2) Since money is not really an object, the only real hold-up comes with which prospects are going to be sent the other way.

 

It's not that simple when other teams who have to face a budget crunch want to make these types of transactions.

 

While in 2009 Cashman had to work with some restraints while pulling off these moves, he quite simply had more financial and personnel flexibility to make the moves he made. If that doesn't make a GM's life easier when trying to trade players, i don't know what does.

[Dipre]

And the Cardinals could have done what the Yankees did' date=' but they went a different route. Just like the Yankees could have done what the Cardinals did, but they went a different route. Both were capable of doing what the other did.[/quote']

 

No they weren't.

 

Because, unlike Granderson, Matt Holliday was a need.

 

If they let him go, who hits behind Pujols? Do they trade for Granderson and hit him fourth?

[yankees228]

Most of the teams in the league don't have nearly 20 million dollars of payroll flexibility even after losing some of their players.

 

But don't concentrate on the cool amount of money only. What about the prospects?

 

See, this is the real hold-up of the issue. And this point has been ignored to this point.

 

The Yankees, could have, for around the same amount of money, kept Matsui and Damon. So no, Granderson was not a necessity, but a move to get younger. You can possibly make that argument about Vasquez, but his salary, while affordable, is not cheap, and they had other options.

 

But not only did they spend a similar amount of money, they sent over a number of prospects. The real advantage is in being able to create a combination of both, while absorbing full contracts that gives them a two-pronged advantage.

 

1) Allows them to lessen the actual amount of prospects needed.

 

2) Since money is not really an object, the only real hold-up comes with which prospects are going to be sent the other way.

 

It's not that simple when other teams who have to face a budget crunch want to make these types of transactions.

 

While in 2009 Cashman had to work with some restraints while pulling off these moves, he quite simply had more financial and personnel flexibility to make the moves he made. If that doesn't make a GM's life easier when trying to trade players, i don't know what does.

 

I still think there are plenty of teams that could have sacrificed the prospects that the Yankees did. They gave up the fourth best outfielder on the MLB team, an outfield prospect whose ceiling is probably around what they got in return, and a low level pitcher who is no sure thing, and might be able to be replaced by picks they receive from a Vazquez signing in the offseason. They also gave up Ian Kennedy, who is far from any kind of star. I really think these are a group of players who, along with the money, other teams could have sacrificed.

[yankees228]

No they weren't.

 

Because, unlike Granderson, Matt Holliday was a need.

 

If they let him go, who hits behind Pujols? Do they trade for Granderson and hit him fourth?

 

And, at the same time, the Yankees needed to replace their number two and five hitters, something that is not easy to do.

[Dipre]

And' date=' at the same time, the Yankees needed to replace their number two and five hitters, something that is not easy to do.[/quote']

 

They didn't need to replace them. They chose to. Big difference.

[Dipre]

I still think there are plenty of teams that could have sacrificed the prospects that the Yankees did. They gave up the fourth best outfielder on the MLB team' date=' an outfield prospect whose ceiling is probably around what they got in return, and a low level pitcher who is no sure thing, and might be able to be replaced by picks they receive from a Vazquez signing in the offseason. They also gave up Ian Kennedy, who is far from any kind of star. I really think these are a group of players who, along with the money, other teams could have sacrificed.[/quote']

 

Name one team who you realistically think had the prospects and money to pull off trades for both of them.

[jacksonianmarch]

I still think there are plenty of teams that could have sacrificed the prospects that the Yankees did. They gave up the fourth best outfielder on the MLB team' date=' an outfield prospect whose ceiling is probably around what they got in return, and a low level pitcher who is no sure thing, and might be able to be replaced by picks they receive from a Vazquez signing in the offseason. They also gave up Ian Kennedy, who is far from any kind of star. I really think these are a group of players who, along with the money, other teams could have sacrificed.[/quote']

 

The moves were no-brainers. Get a horse SP still in his prime for 3 players, one whose ceiling is a Javy Vazquez and then two guys who were not going to be big impact players.

 

Then get your franchise CFer at 28 yrs old while under control for at least 2 more yrs for a CFer with the same ceiling as Granderson but much further away and giving up a lefty reliever and a righty starter who was blocked and stagnating in the system.

 

They got two high level players for really 2 top prospects and a bunch of detritus that the Yankees weren't going to be able to use.

 

Plus, if Javy leaves via FA after the season, those two picks (likely being in the top 40) would more than make up for the loss of the only major prospect dealt in his deal (Arodys Vizcaino).

[yankees228]

Name one team who you realistically think had the prospects and money to pull off trades for both of them.

 

How about the Red Sox?

[Dipre]

How about the Red Sox?

 

Not after signing Lackey and Cameron. Because they operate under cap restrictions, unlike the Yanks.

[Dipre]

The moves were no-brainers. Get a horse SP still in his prime for 3 players, one whose ceiling is a Javy Vazquez and then two guys who were not going to be big impact players.

 

Then get your franchise CFer at 28 yrs old while under control for at least 2 more yrs for a CFer with the same ceiling as Granderson but much further away and giving up a lefty reliever and a righty starter who was blocked and stagnating in the system.

 

They got two high level players for really 2 top prospects and a bunch of detritus that the Yankees weren't going to be able to use.

 

Plus, if Javy leaves via FA after the season, those two picks (likely being in the top 40) would more than make up for the loss of the only major prospect dealt in his deal (Arodys Vizcaino).

 

So now Granderson is a "franchise" CF? Ok.

 

For the record, i'm not saying Granderson is a bad player, he's a very very good player, but franchise? Come on.

 

I'm also not criticizing the moves, so i have no idea what exactly the above post adds to the discussion, because the value of the moves is not being discussed, since everyone has pretty much agreed that they improved the ballclub.

 

This adds nothing to the actual discussion which has to do with other team's ability to spend resources to acquire players through trades like the Yankees.

[yankees228]

Not after signing Lackey and Cameron. Because they operate under cap restrictions' date=' unlike the Yanks.[/quote']

 

Obviously not after Lackey and Cameron, but we're talking about what they could have done from the outset of the offseason. That's the point.

 

And just because the Yankees have the highest payroll doesn't mean they don't have a budget. As has been discussed so often on this site, the amount of money they can spend on players is based on the revenue the generate, which isn't infinite. It's pretty clear that they do have a budget, and it showed this offseason.

[Dipre]

Obviously not after Lackey and Cameron, but we're talking about what they could have done from the outset of the offseason. That's the point.

 

And just because the Yankees have the highest payroll doesn't mean they don't have a budget. As has been discussed so often on this site, the amount of money they can spend on players is based on the revenue the generate, which isn't infinite. It's pretty clear that they do have a budget, and it showed this offseason.

 

They have a budget, but they don't have as many constraints as the other teams.

 

As stated before, it's difficult for teams to have 20 million to play with.

 

And that's the point we differ in, even at the offset of the offseason, if faced with the decision between giving up money and prospects, or only money, teams will usually go for option B.

[yankees228]

They have a budget, but they don't have as many constraints as the other teams.

 

As stated before, it's difficult for teams to have 20 million to play with.

 

And that's the point we differ in, even at the offset of the offseason, if faced with the decision between giving up money and prospects, or only money, teams will usually go for option B.

 

It all comes down to if a team thinks they're getting more back than they're giving up. You make it seem like it's the same amount of money in both instances, but very often the prospects are in place of money. This offseason, for instance, the Yankees chose to give up prospects in place of spending the money required to hand out long term contracts to the best free agents (Lackey, Holliday, Bay, etc.).

 

When an owner refuses to push past a certain budget, teams need to get creative, and give up things in place of money (prospects).

[Dipre]

It all comes down to if a team thinks they're getting more back than they're giving up. You make it seem like it's the same amount of money in both instances, but very often the prospects are in place of money. This offseason, for instance, the Yankees chose to give up prospects in place of spending the money required to hand out long term contracts to the best free agents (Lackey, Holliday, Bay, etc.).

 

When an owner refuses to push past a certain budget, teams need to get creative, and give up things in place of money (prospects).

 

The issue is the advantage the Yankees have because of money. The fact that you acknowledge that by not being able to have X amount of money to play with, other teams have to get creative and create more enticing prospect packages is clear indication of that advantage.

 

Let's say, for argument's sake, 20 teams could have used both Vasquez and Granderson, but out of those 20, only five had the money and prospects required to pull off both deals. Those five teams have a clear cut advantage over the rest of the playing field.

 

I'm not saying it's only the Yankees, but given that they always have the biggest monetary advantage in the league, then that helps further uneven the playing field, because by already being over the luxury tax, they can easily set a flexible "ceiling" and stick to it or expand it as they see fit.

 

Money gives them an advantage no one else can emulate when it comes to the FA market, trading, and the Int FA market. I don't see why the claim is so outrageous.

[Gom]

I'm going to go ahead and ask for either of Y228 or Gom to come up with a plausible scenario where other teams' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

Rubbish.

 

The Yankees lost 28.6 million in Melky, Damon, and Matsui. They added Granderson, Vazquez, and Johnson for approximately 22 million. I'm pretty sure any team can afford to replace three players for three players while cutting salary. You are losing it, Dipre. The Red Sox added over 40 million in payroll from last season, and you actually have the gall to say no other team can do so? Look at the Twins. What is their payroll compared to last year?

 

If the Yankees had gone out and made these deals, and also signed Lackey, I'd understand your beef this off-season. Since they haven't...well, I'll wake you up when the season starts.

[yankees228]

The issue is the advantage the Yankees have because of money. The fact that you acknowledge that by not being able to have X amount of money to play with, other teams have to get creative and create more enticing prospect packages is clear indication of that advantage.

 

Let's say, for argument's sake, 20 teams could have used both Vasquez and Granderson, but out of those 20, only five had the money and prospects required to pull off both deals. Those five teams have a clear cut advantage over the rest of the playing field.

 

I'm not saying it's only the Yankees, but given that they always have the biggest monetary advantage in the league, then that helps further uneven the playing field, because by already being over the luxury tax, they can easily set a flexible "ceiling" and stick to it or expand it as they see fit.

 

Money gives them an advantage no one else can emulate when it comes to the FA market, trading, and the Int FA market. I don't see why the claim is so outrageous.

 

But, if you take this offseason, the Yankees didn't have that advantage that they normally enjoy. Instead of going out and just signing the big free agents, they got creative, and I think that's where Cashman deserves a lot of credit.

 

As for the Yankees' ceiling, I don't think it's any more flexible than most teams. They've pretty much reached their ceiling (for now), evidenced by the fact that their yearly payroll hasn't increased much since 2008. This offseason, without a ton of money coming off the books, Cashman didn't have all that flexibility that you're alluding to, and was put on more of an even playing field with the other GMs in the league. Personally, as I've already said numerous times, I think he did very well.

 

As for the last statement, without a doubt. The Yankees are able to spend more than any other team, and it gives them an advantage (of varying degrees depending on the other team) over all twenty nine other teams. That is indisputable, and a point I never once challenged.

[Dipre]

Rubbish.

 

The Yankees lost 28.6 million in Melky, Damon, and Matsui. They added Granderson, Vazquez, and Johnson for approximately 22 million. I'm pretty sure any team can afford to replace three players for three players while cutting salary. You are losing it, Dipre. The Red Sox added over 40 million in payroll from last season, and you actually have the gall to say no other team can do so? Look at the Twins. What is their payroll compared to last year?

 

If the Yankees had gone out and made these deals, and also signed Lackey, I'd understand your beef this off-season. Since they haven't...well, I'll wake you up when the season starts.

 

What are you talking about?

 

It's like you don't read.

 

Let me put it to you in three, easy-to-read points:

 

Point A: The Yankees made the trades not because they needed to replace players A or B, or were in dire need or player C, they made them to improve the roster, that is fact. However, when you take into account the need aspect of it and realize that, for instance, the Cards had to re-sign Holliday, and the Sox had to get an impact player after losing Bay, you realize that for the Yankees, these are roster "tweaks" not needs , said tweaks cost them both money and prospects, and it's a luxury other tams can't afford to have.

 

While you spout that $27 million is not such a big deal, more than 50% of the league doesn't have much more than $27 million to spend, hell ,some teams don't have much more than $27 million in total payroll. See, your opinion is inadequate because you're trying to turn it into a Sox-Yanks comparison, which it isn't, it's a Yanks-league comparison, and it's never once been said that the off-season was bad, just that or that he blatantly overpaid, but that other teams might not have been able to fit both transactions into their payroll or muster the prospects to pull it off. But you don't process what you read.

 

Point B: This is not an attempt to bash the Yanks off-season, which was excellent. I'll reiterate it so your butt stops hurting.

 

Point C: Unless you can come up with a logical scenario where at least 75% of the league has the luxury of playing around with $27 million in an off-season (showing restraint, mind you) maintaining an unbiased, consistent thought process (you can't) then it's obvious their spending power helped them achieve said excellent off-season. It's not the be-all, end-all, specially with the trades, but it helped.

But, if you take this offseason, the Yankees didn't have that advantage that they normally enjoy. Instead of going out and just signing the big free agents, they got creative, and I think that's where Cashman deserves a lot of credit.

 

As for the Yankees' ceiling, I don't think it's any more flexible than most teams. They've pretty much reached their ceiling (for now), evidenced by the fact that their yearly payroll hasn't increased much since 2008. This offseason, without a ton of money coming off the books, Cashman didn't have all that flexibility that you're alluding to, and was put on more of an even playing field with the other GMs in the league. Personally, as I've already said numerous times, I think he did very well.

 

As for the last statement, without a doubt. The Yankees are able to spend more than any other team, and it gives them an advantage (of varying degrees depending on the other team) over all twenty nine other teams. That is indisputable, and a point I never once challenged.

 

I'll ask again: How many teams in the league can play around with $27 million in any given offseason? Five, six? I'm not saying they're the only ones that have that advantage, but they have it, that they have the riches in terms of prospects is just icing on the cake.

 

Agree on the last point.

[yankees228]

Well, I'm only talking about the 17 million dollars they that Vazquez and Granderson will cost in 2010. If a team has a similar amount of money coming off the books (or, in the case of some teams, even if it isn't coming off the books), then they can spend that money.

 

Also, it's not like the Yankees' sacrificed any fantastic prospects, and plenty of teams have much deeper farm systems than the Yankees where they can sacrifice some of their non star prospects and not miss them (especially when you consider that there is a good chance they can recoup some of those losses with Vazquez).

 

Also, which is my "last point" that you're referring to? Me agreeing with you about the Yankees' advantages, or the middle paragraph?

[yankees228]

I also really disagree with you about your definition of necessities and opposed to luxuries. The Yankees needed to replace their number two and number five hitter just like the Red Sox needed to replace Bay or the Cardinals needed to replace Holliday. And they also realized that they needed another dependable starter, because they cannot count on winning another World Series with a three man rotation, and the staff was last was very average. That might not cut it in the best division in baseball. Instead of going out and signing any big free agents, the Yankees chose to do this via trade.

 

Whether they left because they chose to (Damon), or because the Yankees weren't interested (Matsui), they still needed to be replaced, and the Yankees did so with similar costs.

[Dipre]

Well, I'm only talking about the 17 million dollars they that Vazquez and Granderson will cost in 2010. If a team has a similar amount of money coming off the books (or, in the case of some teams, even if it isn't coming off the books), then they can spend that money.

 

Also, it's not like the Yankees' sacrificed any fantastic prospects, and plenty of teams have much deeper farm systems than the Yankees where they can sacrifice some of their non star prospects and not miss them (especially when you consider that there is a good chance they can recoup some of those losses with Vazquez).

 

Also, which is my "last point" that you're referring to? Me agreeing with you about the Yankees' advantages, or the middle paragraph?

 

Actually, both. The fact that they've reached their ceiling for now, and also about the advantage. Look, i know it's not like it used to be with the "no limit" mentality, but still, that's a lot of flexibility to play around with.

 

As for the Granderson and Vasquez acquisition, i don't think you can look at them as stand-alone, if you do, then your argument would be absolutely correct, but you have to look at off-seasons in a vacuum, because when you make the comparison, you have to look at the process of roster construction in a vacuum. A lot of the smaller-market teams lose a lot of the flexibility they gain through FA departures in the Arb process, and some can't make such commitments to one or two players, because they have other needs to fill.

 

The Yankees, even with a ceiling, can overlook a great deal of the process while also working without the worries of the salary cap, which also stops other bigger-market teams like the Sox or Phillies. They have a limit, but the limit is higher.

 

I'll say it again, Cashman's offseason was very good, but having flexibility helped him achieve it.

 

About the prospects, some of those not-so-fantastic prospects are bargaining chips or potential bench players other teams would have wanted to keep so they can fill needs without having to spend a lot of money. That's a rule that teams like the Yankees, Red Sox and Phillies don't play by.

[Dipre]

I also really disagree with you about your definition of necessities and opposed to luxuries. The Yankees needed to replace their number two and number five hitter just like the Red Sox needed to replace Bay or the Cardinals needed to replace Holliday. And they also realized that they needed another dependable starter, because they cannot count on winning another World Series with a three man rotation, and the staff was last was very average. That might not cut it in the best division in baseball. Instead of going out and signing any big free agents, the Yankees chose to do this via trade.

 

Whether they left because they chose to (Damon), or because the Yankees weren't interested (Matsui), they still needed to be replaced, and the Yankees did so with similar costs.

 

We can agree to disagree on that.

 

The Yankees could have kept Matsui and Damon. They chose to let them walk. They didn't have to replace their number two and number five hitters, they chose to replace them.

[yankees228]

Actually, both. The fact that they've reached their ceiling for now, and also about the advantage. Look, i know it's not like it used to be with the "no limit" mentality, but still, that's a lot of flexibility to play around with.

 

As for the Granderson and Vasquez acquisition, i don't think you can look at them as stand-alone, if you do, then your argument would be absolutely correct, but you have to look at off-seasons in a vacuum, because when you make the comparison, you have to look at the process of roster construction in a vacuum. A lot of the smaller-market teams lose a lot of the flexibility they gain through FA departures in the Arb process, and some can't make such commitments to one or two players, because they have other needs to fill.

 

The Yankees, even with a ceiling, can overlook a great deal of the process while also working without the worries of the salary cap, which also stops other bigger-market teams like the Sox or Phillies. They have a limit, but the limit is higher.

 

I'll say it again, Cashman's offseason was very good, but having flexibility helped him achieve it.

 

About the prospects, some of those not-so-fantastic prospects are bargaining chips or potential bench players other teams would have wanted to keep so they can fill needs without having to spend a lot of money. That's a rule that teams like the Yankees, Red Sox and Phillies don't play by.

 

I agree with most of this. I don't think we're too far from each other. We both acknowledge that the Yankees benefit from these advantages, which makes it easier for them to create a good roster.

 

As for not being able to look at the two acquisitions by themselves, when you're discussing the offseason as a whole, I agree. However, if we're talking about Cashman's ability to complete successful trades, then I think it's fair to look at them on an individual basis.

 

I'll also address your next post here. When the offseason began, the Yankees needed a number two hitter, a number five hitter, and another starting pitcher. However, they did this, whether it was through re-signing players, signing free agents, or completing trades, those spots needed to be filled. That's how I see it.

 

And for what it's worth, the Red Sox lost out on Jason Bay just like the Yankees lost out on Johnny Damon. They both offered each player what they felt he was worth, both players declined, the Red Sox and Yankees were unwilling to any higher, and those players left.

[Dipre]

I agree with most of this. I don't think we're too far from each other. We both acknowledge that the Yankees benefit from these advantages, which makes it easier for them to create a good roster.

 

As for not being able to look at the two acquisitions by themselves, when you're discussing the offseason as a whole, I agree. However, if we're talking about Cashman's ability to complete successful trades, then I think it's fair to look at them on an individual basis.

 

I'll also address your next post here. When the offseason began, the Yankees needed a number two hitter, a number five hitter, and another starting pitcher. However, they did this, whether it was through re-signing players, signing free agents, or completing trades, those spots needed to be filled. That's how I see it.

 

And for what it's worth, the Red Sox lost out on Jason Bay just like the Yankees lost out on Johnny Damon. They both offered each player what they felt he was worth, both players declined, the Red Sox and Yankees were unwilling to any higher, and those players left.

 

I don't think the Bay situation and the Matsui/Damon situation are comparable, and here's why:

 

The fact that the Yankees wanted flexibility from the DH spot and they were likely to not bring Matsui back was floating around for some time, and as for Granderson, i read somewhere that the Yankees has been trying to acquire him since last year, so maybe my opinion is skewed because of it. In my opinion, the Yankees had a plan to get younger and more athletic, and neither Matsui or Damon were part of that plan, hence the "not necessity" part. Let's not call it a luxury, but a plan of action.

 

As for Bay, the Sox were weary of his knees, and they couldn't get him to accept a conditional clause, they didn't plan from before to move on without him, but realized that they likely would have to.

[yankees228]

I don't think the Bay situation and the Matsui/Damon situation are comparable, and here's why:

 

The fact that the Yankees wanted flexibility from the DH spot and they were likely to not bring Matsui back was floating around for some time, and as for Granderson, i read somewhere that the Yankees has been trying to acquire him since last year, so maybe my opinion is skewed because of it. In my opinion, the Yankees had a plan to get younger and more athletic, and neither Matsui or Damon were part of that plan, hence the "not necessity" part. Let's not call it a luxury, but a plan of action.

 

As for Bay, the Sox were weary of his knees, and they couldn't get him to accept a conditional clause, they didn't plan from before to move on without him, but realized that they likely would have to.

 

The Yankees may have been planning to to create some flexibility in the DH spot, but they didn't. They let one full time DH go and then acquired another one. But I never tried to compare the Matsui situation, only the Damon situation.

 

We can make all the assumptions we want about what the Yankees were thinking, or we can look at the facts. The Yankees offered Damon what they thought he was worth, and then moved on. The Red Sox offered Bay what they thought he was worth, and then moved on.

 

Maybe the Yankees always planned to get younger. Maybe the Red Sox always planned to improve defensively. Who knows? That's why I think, in this situation, it's best just to rely on the facts, and in that case, the situations are very similar.

[jacksonianmarch]

Dipre, I have been monitoring this thread for some time and think it is generating good discussion sans Gom's intrusion. I do agree that both are different scenarios, but both are entirely different teams with similar but different styles of filling their teams due to their needs

 

Cashman does benefit greatly from NY's flexibility, which I believe was one of your first points. But he also generated the second half of that equation. Flexibility, IMO, entails both solid farm system depth and large sums of cash to spend. Nobody would argue that Cashman has a massive advantage here, to do so is stupid. And I am glad to see you give Cash the credit he was due by calling the offseason a good one for him, as I tend to agree. But you are not ackowledging the cut in payroll. Granted, it is pretty slight, down about $6 million from 2009, but it is a cut nonetheless. To get younger and better while also cutting payroll is a feat to say the least. Now, to your most recent comments, you are right. Cash has had his eyes on both Granderson AND Vazquez for the past 2-3 yrs. He was quoted as saying that he had been trying to reacquire Javy since he traded him away and that he'd been pursuing Grandy since 2008. It just so happened that Grandy's situation plus the development of AJax made the deal happen.

 

In terms of Theo, he has the second most flexibility in the game. He's got less money and probably equal (well, now more after the deals to move Arodys and AJax) talent in the farm system to play with. So he has a massive amount of flexibility as well, which is what I think played into his decision with Jason Bay. Bay would have been very easy to resign for Boston. 4yrs, $66 mil for a 31 yr old LFer who perennially hits 30HRs and 100RBIs is an easy move. But Theo craves the flexibility as well, and he knew that signing Bay would mean that the DH spot would not be as fluid. I think this is the last yr of the full time, long term DH in Boston. He'll go yr to yr with it while using it as a resting place for overworked players or a proving grounds for some of his unproven hitters. It is not a bad model. So signing Bay would have removed that flexibility based on their assessment of his knees. So they went another way. All in the name of staying more flexible, a la his counterpart in NY