Hughes wins 5th starter slot, Joba to the pen

[jacksonianmarch]

And in terms of the Damon situation, they were still negotiating with him after the Granderson deal. They did exactly as y228 had said. They offered him what they thought he was worth, and he tried to drag it out. He got a better deal on a worse team in a park that will assassinate his value. It was a poor move on his part.

[Dipre]

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.

 

The situations are similar on the surface, but think about this:

 

The Sox actually had the chance to trade Ellsbury for Granderson, and balked, beause Granderson is more expensive, and might've interfered with their other plans because of luxury tax issues.

 

Tigers wanted Ellsbury, Bucholz for Granderson

 

The Sox could've also traded Bucholz for Granderson, and went out and got Javy Vasquez, but it doesn't make sense for them financially, and would have cost prospects to get him.

 

It always comes down to "making sense financially". The constraints on other teams are different than the ceiling on the Yankees.

 

Also, it's impossible to deal only with facts when talking about a hypothetical situation in which another team manages to acquire both Granderson and Vasquez.

[Dipre]

And in terms of the Damon situation' date=' they were still negotiating with him after the Granderson deal. They did exactly as y228 had said. They offered him what they thought he was worth, and he tried to drag it out. He got a better deal on a worse team in a park that will assassinate his value. It was a poor move on his part.[/quote']

 

Still could've brought him back, though. Which is the basis of the "Not necessity" argument.

[jacksonianmarch]

Using the money excuse is always there when talking about the Yankees. But this offseason, they acquired these players AND cut payroll. Plus, if the sox had gotten Granderson and NOT signed Cameron, they would have come out even. So while convenient, the money excuse doesnt work this offseason

[Dipre]

Using the money excuse is always there when talking about the Yankees. But this offseason' date=' they acquired these players AND cut payroll. Plus, if the sox had gotten Granderson and NOT signed Cameron, they would have come out even. So while convenient, the money excuse doesnt work this offseason[/quote']

 

*sigh*.

 

What money excuse Jacko?

 

Did you read the thread?

[yankees228]

The situations are similar on the surface, but think about this:

 

The Sox actually had the chance to trade Ellsbury for Granderson, and balked, beause Granderson is more expensive, and might've interfered with their other plans because of luxury tax issues.

 

Tigers wanted Ellsbury, Bucholz for Granderson

 

The Sox could've also traded Bucholz for Granderson, and went out and got Javy Vasquez, but it doesn't make sense for them financially, and would have cost prospects to get him.

 

It always comes down to "making sense financially". The constraints on other teams are different than the ceiling on the Yankees.

 

Also, it's impossible to deal only with facts when talking about a hypothetical situation in which another team manages to acquire both Granderson and Vasquez.

 

I was talking about the Damon and Bay situations. Not the Granderson and Vazquez ones.

 

As for the Red Sox possibly trading for Granderson, I think it's pretty obvious that the Tigers' demands played a large part in the Red Sox decision (Ellsbury or Buchholz). The Yankees were able to take part in a deal where they didn't surrender nearly as much in my opinion.

[jacksonianmarch]

Well, the acquisition of Granderson would have been a net net even when it comes to contract since Cameron wouldnt have been signed. But adding in Vazquez would have brought you over the current salary for 2010. Sorry, misread the quote

[yankees228]

Still could've brought him back' date=' though. Which is the basis of the "Not necessity" argument.[/quote']

 

And using the exact same logic, the Red Sox could have brought Bay back.

[Dipre]

I was talking about the Damon and Bay situations. Not the Granderson and Vazquez ones.

 

As for the Red Sox possibly trading for Granderson, I think it's pretty obvious that the Tigers' demands played a large part in the Red Sox decision (Ellsbury or Buchholz). The Yankees were able to take part in a deal where they didn't surrender nearly as much in my opinion.

 

Ah, fair enough.

 

Damon and Bay were very similar situations, no argument about that.

[jacksonianmarch]

I was talking about the Damon and Bay situations. Not the Granderson and Vazquez ones.

 

As for the Red Sox possibly trading for Granderson, I think it's pretty obvious that the Tigers' demands played a large part in the Red Sox decision (Ellsbury or Buchholz). The Yankees were able to take part in a deal where they didn't surrender nearly as much in my opinion.

 

Depends on what you think AJax is going to become. Lets put it this way, is AJax, Coke, and Kennedy worth more than Ellsbury or Buchholz? All depends on what you see in AJax IMO

[yankees228]

Depends on what you think AJax is going to become. Lets put it this way' date=' is AJax, Coke, and Kennedy worth more than Ellsbury or Buchholz? All depends on what you see in AJax IMO[/quote']

 

Ellsbury and Buchholz are already productive Major Leaguers with the potential to be stars. I agree, it all depends what you see in Jackson, but he's a completely unproven commodity (unlike the other two), and from what I read, he has a lower ceiling than Ellsbury, for instance.

[Dipre]

Well' date=' the acquisition of Granderson would have been a net net even when it comes to contract since Cameron wouldnt have been signed. But adding in Vazquez would have brought you over the current salary for 2010. Sorry, misread the quote[/quote']

 

Look, i won't be a dick, and i'll ask for your opinion on the meat of the argument before i go off for a jog :

 

Does having superior financial/ prospect flexibility help when trading?

 

My initial argument is that when acquiring both Vasquez and Granderson, it did help the Yankees, because the way i see it, i don't think any other team could have fit them both in their payroll besides the Yankees (when looking at the off-season in a vacuum).

 

I'm going to go ahead and say this is not a Yankee-bashing attempt. Cashman's off-season was brilliant, but having flexibility helped him achieve his goals.

 

Also, flexibility doesn't only help the Yanks. It helped the Sox acquire Victor Martinez (lesser teams might've found his contract too rich for their blood) , the Phillies acquire Roy Halladay (contract extension demands) and the Mets acquire Johan Santana (ditto).

[yankees228]

For what it's worth, this was a solid discussion, and hopefully with the season beginning, we can have more of these that involve more of the members.

[Gom]

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.

So...the Red Sox decided not to keep Bay for the years he wanted...how is that different than Damon? The Yankees decided that they wanted to get younger and cheaper...the Yankees needed to replace Damon and Matsui once they left. They used the money for two aging stars to get younger, and quite possibly, better.

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.

The Yankees net moves from their additions subtractions is approximately 6 million in SAVINGS. Not expenditure.

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.

The only thing that makes sense in your whole argument.

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.

Again...the Yankees net spending in players lost and players gained over this off-season has decreased for 2010.

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.

Agreed.

[Gom]

Look, i won't be a dick, and i'll ask for your opinion on the meat of the argument before i go off for a jog :

 

Does having superior financial/ prospect flexibility help when trading?

Absolutely.

My initial argument is that when acquiring both Vasquez and Granderson, it did help the Yankees, because the way i see it, i don't think any other team could have fit them both in their payroll besides the Yankees (when looking at the off-season in a vacuum).).

The Red Sox could have. So could the Mets. In essence, this is a failed point. The Yankees did not add that much money [22 million], they actually offset it in the salaries they let expire.

 

The Red Sox will lose Lowell's salary, Ortiz, and Beckett at the end of this season. If they decide to get Lee and Crawford for say 15 million a piece, does that mean they could add 30 million? Possibly, but the reality is that who they lost will offset who they gain.

I'm going to go ahead and say this is not a Yankee-bashing attempt. Cashman's off-season was brilliant, but having flexibility helped him achieve his goals.

 

Also, flexibility doesn't only help the Yanks. It helped the Sox acquire Victor Martinez (lesser teams might've found his contract too rich for their blood) , the Phillies acquire Roy Halladay (contract extension demands) and the Mets acquire Johan Santana (ditto).

I agree with the last paragraph 100%. It's nice to see Red Sox fans finally admit their advantages. Kudos.

[Dipre]

Again, it's not a Yankee-bashing attempt. It's an exercise of analysis in how the economics in baseball work.

 

In essence, the more money a team has to spend, the easier its life in basically every aspect of acquiring talent, be it the FA Market, trades, or the International market.

 

It doesn't only help the Yankees, it also helps the Sox, Phillie, Seattle (at least for the moment) and the Mets, but they're stupid.

[Gom]

Again, it's not a Yankee-bashing attempt. It's an exercise of analysis in how the economics in baseball work.

 

In essence, the more money a team has to spend, the easier its life in basically every aspect of acquiring talent, be it the FA Market, trades, or the International market.

 

It doesn't only help the Yankees, it also helps the Sox, Phillie, Seattle (at least for the moment) and the Mets, but they're stupid.

 

Exactly. The time it helps the least IMO opinion is the draft, since you are slotted in a spot, and the money effect is minimized as in comparison to the other examples. The Red Sox have done an excellent job in the draft. The Yankees have not.

 

I think we are in 100% agreement on this [except for Jacko, but his opinions don't really count anyways].