yankees228

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.

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.

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 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.

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?

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.

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).

How about the Red Sox?

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

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

I think this attitude is pretty foolish. Every team that has a large fan base has all different kinds of fans. A winning team draws in all sorts of fans, to the point where you cannot generalize.

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.

I think it's just because they win. Same reason people hate UNC basketball, Florida football, the Lakers, the Cowboys, etc. Everyone will throw around their other, often anecdotal, reasons, but there is one thing in common with all the teams that the masses hate - they win. Regardless, when you're talking about someone hating a team (or hating anything for that matter), it becomes a discussion clouded by emotion, which is a discussion that isn't worth having.