yankees228

I just saw the post you made in the predictions thread. If you'd like, feel free to address the above post in that thread.

I don't disagree, but lets look at the facts. The Yankees are going to carry twelve pitchers. The locks are... -Sabathia -Burnett -Pettitte -Vazquez -Chamberlain -Hughes (Girardi said he envisions the loser of the 5th starter competition pitching out of the pen) -Rivera -Marte -Robertson -Park (considering it's a guaranteed contract) Girardi has publicly said he wants to carry a second lefty in the bullpen. Assuming he does this, that leaves only one open spot. They candidates for that spot would seem to be Aceves, Gaudin, Mitre, and Melancon. Gaudin and Mitre both don't have options left, unlike Aceves and Melancon. I think the Yankees like Gaudin a lot, and would be very hesitant to lose him. Additionally, I could envision a scenario where they want Aceves stretched out, so he would be ready to take someone's spot in the rotation, after the failed attempt last year.

Per yankees.lhblogs.com, Cashman confirmed today that Chad Gaudin and Sergio Mitre both have non-guaranteed contracts. I think this gives us some insight into what there mindset was with those two contracts, and with the Park contract. When you consider that Aceves also can be sent down, the Yankees do have some flexibility when it comes to the back end of the rotation. Personally, I think Mitre will be let go, Aceves will be starting in AAA, and Gaudin will be the long man, but we'll see.

And who is saying this that is of any importance?

I have issues with two and three. Two was questionable. It was a bit soft, but it appeared that contact with Wall's hand had a legitimate effect on the shot, so I don't think it's fair to say it wasn't a foul. Three was a bad call, but it's unfair to call it blatant. It's a bang bang call, and one that can easily be missed. It's enough to say it's a bad call, but I think adding the word 'blatant' to it is an exaggeration.

Johnson will bat second. I'm curious as to why that's comical. EDIT: Oops lol. Just re-read it...

Winn has his value in his defensive abilities. An outfield of Swisher, Granderson, Gardner, Winn, and Thames is comparable to what they had last year (Swisher, Damon, Cabrera, Gardner, and Hinske). The only thing they're missing that they had last year is someone with Hairston's bat

I apologize for the tone of the question. Reading it again, I understand how it could have been misconstrued.

The funny thing about this site, at times, is that people just assume that someone else is taking a shot at them. I asked you if that's what you guys had done, nothing more. Also, to me, Daisuke is more of a question mark than Burnett because Burnett was completely healthy the last two years, while Daisuke is coming off a season where he missed a great deal of time. I understand that you were only using that as an example, in an attempt to show your conversational approach. Now that I'm clear on that, I was simply commenting on the example.

Haven't you and Imperial focused on potential injuries when discussing the downside of the 2010 Yankees' roster?

The optimistic side of me hopes that Chamberlain had really figured things out coming out of the ASB, and the ten (or so) days off following the start in TB messed him up. Granted, he wasn't anything special in the first round, so what he'll be moving forward is a huge mystery. Personally, I don't think velocity is his biggest problem. Much like Hughes, I think it's important for him to have a change up, and to improve his fastball location.

Just when you thought that game could not get any stranger, a fight breaks out in the bullpen in the middle of the ninth inning. Crazy, crazy stuff.

I completely disagree with your assessment of Hughes' future. First, I don't think he's necessarily destined to be a reliever, but hypothetically, lets say he is going to just be a reliever. Based on what we've seen from him so far, why would you only say he's going to be a middle reliever.? He might not sustain it, but he was nothing short of dominant this year in a short relief role. If Hughes' future is in the bullpen, it's not fair to call him a middle reliever. Instead, set-up man or closer is more accurate. As for him being a starter, he may, or he may not, but he began to show some promise last May before Wang came back. If he can further develop his change up, in my opinion, there is no reason not to think he can be a successful big league starter. People love to throw these prospects into groups based on very small sample size. They may or may not pan out, but it has been proven time and time again that patience needs to be shown with them. With Hughes, and also with Chamberlain, I think that patience is important.

What I'm saying is that even though they had decent win totals in those years, it didn't amount to anything. In the past four years the Mets have one playoff berth. In the past four years the Yankees have three playoff berths and one championship. While the Yankees have spent significantly more money than the Mets during that time period, they've had so much more success that I'm of the opinion that they've gotten more bang for their buck.

It has to do with a strict budget after spending an incredible amount of money the previous offseason. I think it's reasonable.

The last sentence isn't entirely accurate. Many fans got on A-Rod for not only failing in the postseason, but failing in big spots late in regular season games. However, starting in 2007, people were forced to drop the regular season part. However, on the whole, I agree with your point. Even if A-Rod is more relaxed now than he ever has been, like you said, he never had much trouble performing in the regular season.

While letting Pedro go turned out to be the correct move for the Red Sox, I don't think it's necessarily fair to say that it was a bad move for the Mets. Granted, he only lived up to expectations for half the contract (and didn't pitch in the 2006 playoffs), but he really helped legitimize the Mets' franchise. He was the first big ticket free agent that Minaya brought in, and it was probably a spring board for many more (especially Beltran). While Pedro's performance is the most relevant way to judge the worth of his contract, the other factors should not be forgotten. On top of that, I don't understand why you're making it seem like the Mets spend so much more money than the Red Sox, when you know that to be inaccurate.

Assuming they don't open up their wallets and bring back Damon, they'll be looking for someone to platoon with Gardner in left. It'll probably either be Xavier Nady, Rocco Baldelli, Reed Johnson, or Marcus Thames. As for the rest of the bench, with Hairston gone, it appears the Yankees will fill those spots from within. Ramiro Pena will probably serve as the utility infielder in 2010, but, he's a worse hitter than Hairston and can't play the outfield.

Shame to see them have to let Hairston go, but I guess they really only have a couple million more dollars to spend on a RH outfielder.

Maybe I overstated the possibility when I said, "decent chance". I'll go back to what I said in my initial post, that his production should be relatively similar, but if he begins to hit with RISP, he might be elevated to the fifth spot in the lineup.