yankees228

That advantage that you talk about the Yankees having in past years, in my opinion, did not exist until last year. Even in 2006, for the first four months of the season, the two teams were neck and neck. A ridiculous amount of injuries made it impossible for the Red Sox to compete over the last two months of the season. From 2003 on, the Red Sox, even on paper, were just as good, if not better than the Yankees up until last year.

I'm sure you would have said the exact same thing before Lackey was signed. The Yankees, with the exception of adding a cheap, right-handed outfielder, are done this offseason.

While the Red Sox have a deeper bullpen than the Yankees, it's worth noting that one of the main reasons the Yankees pulled away last summer was because of their dominant 1-2 punch at the back end (which they should have some variation of this year).

History has shown that a payroll difference of that size often does not dictate the standings. If the Yankees win the division, it will be about more than just their payroll gap over the Red Sox. As for both teams have the same chance, I agree, even more so because I think it can be argued that in a best of seven series a team might prefer the middle three games at home.

You think those moves are salary dumps, we get that. However, when you're shown that the other team got a significant return, and that financially, plenty of other teams are capable of making the same moves, you ignore the points, yet continue on the same path. You're making a point, covering your ears when someone presents a counter argument, and then continuing to make the same point over and over and over again. Also, what plays out on the field has to do with a lot more things than just injuries. Time and time again you want to make it seem like the Yankees only win because of how much money they spend, when their are a number of other significant factors at play. These factors include smart front office decisions, contributions from cost-controlled players, chemistry (who knows), coaching and managerial decisions, luck (involving more than just health), among many other things. You continue to spout only what helps prove your point, yet you ignore the evidence and logic which counters your point. As for the actual argument, 1-5, the Red Sox starting rotation is simply better than the Yankees. Lester, Beckett, and Lackey, for all the reasons already mentioned, is a better top three than Sabathia, Burnett, and Pettitte. The bottom part of the rotation is closer, mainly because it hinges almost entirely on unknowns (how far Buchholz and Chamberlain/Hughes progress, how Daisuke rebounds, and how Vazquez's numbers translate back to the American League).

Never said he was going to maintain last years success, or at least that isn't what I meant to imply. I think it's possible that he can keep his ERA below 4.

As many of you guys have talked about, he's always been a guy with great stuff that just, for whatever reason, hasn't been able to put it together. Maybe last year was his breakthrough season, and he's just figured out how to be a smarter pitcher. I'm not saying it's a guarantee, but considering what he did last year, it's an intriguing possibility.

Even if you think it's a lopsided the deal, the point that was being debated prior to your comment was how influential the Yankees' financial flexibility was in their ability to make the deal. SS was saying that the Yankees didn't deserve credit for the deal, simply because it's a salary dump. Obviously, that's a ridiculous claim, because it's a trade, as you acknowledged, that plenty of teams had the financial capability to make. Cashman deserves credit for being the one that was able to get the job done.

I think Detroit, overall, got good value in the trade. However, even if want to call it a steal, it's a steal that many teams had the financial ability to make.

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2009/12/yankees-cutting-payroll.html Read the tweets in this post. It is so clearly, little more than speculation.

I never said it came from boston.com. I said it came from Buster Olney, not the Yankees. If you look at any quotes from people in the know, whether it's Cashman or Hal Steinbrenner, they keep toeing the same line. They have a number, they plan on sticking by that number, and it's less than last year. They have said nothing about a specific number. That is either Olney speculating (which I believe I read in tweet), or some anonymous source within the Yankees' organization. Lets stick to the facts.

Also, what a horrendous article, for another reason. The Yankees, from the beginning of the offseason (and even after the Pettitte signing), have said they wanted to address three issues. 1. Outfield 2. Designated Hitter 3. Starting Pitching It's almost comical that what is supposed to be a reputable source would simply ignore this, and just claim that this was a counter move, as if the Yankees only traded for Vazquez because the Red Sox signed Lackey. I don't know much about boston.com, but judging by this article, they should probably stick to writing about the local teams.

The problem is that the Yankees never said they would lower their payroll to $185 million. That was purely speculation by Buster Olney after the Yankees organization meetings. Brian Cashman had never said what the budget was, all he has ever said was that they had a number, and it was less than last year's payroll. It's one thing for you not to remember the source of a quote, but it's really too bad that boston.com is going to insinuate the Yankees, in any way, have lied, when they haven't.

But they salary dumps that many teams can afford. The Vazquez salary and the Granderson salary are completely reasonable amounts of money, considering both player's level of production. The Yankees made these two trades, mainly because they have some talented young players, and Cashman is a good GM. I understand why the Braves and the Tigers got rid of these players, but that doesn't explain why the Yankees were the team that ended up with them. As much as I'm sure you would love to, you cannot attribute everything to the Yankees' financial might, and that seems to be what you're trying to do. As for the season being a formality, there's a reason why there have been eight different champions in the past ten years (during the time span when the Yankees have been outspending everyone).

Really? The Yankees spend a ton of money? Man, I guess I've been under a rock for the last ten years.

After Knoblauch became an ineffective leadoff hitter, the Yankees (starting in 2002) hit Jeter second for the most part, with Soriano and Damon hitting leadoff. Before 2009, they switched it, Jeter had a career year, and the Yankees won a championship. Do you really think they're going to even think about putting him somewhere else?

Gardner is a better defender, and while you might think he makes Melky look like Babe Ruth, Melky's OPS+ was 99, and Gardner's was 93 (in 2009). Also, Gardner had a better WAR than Melky by close to a full run (.7). Melky has a higher ceiling, probably, but they aren't vastly different. As for Holliday, how is he one dimensional? While he doesn't have the speed that Crawford has, and he's a righty, he's an excellent hitter, and a solid defender. He would fit very nicely in the five hole, the only spot in the Yankees' lineup that is a bit questionable in my opinion.

So it's gluttonous to sign Holliday, but not Crawford? Crawford probably won't command quite as much money, but it's going to be relatively close. As for a comparison between the two, Holliday is a better player. I could rattle off a number of stats, but you know what the numbers say just as well as I do. 26, I know that Melky is one of your favorite players, and I respect that. I liked watching him too, especially his intensity in the playoffs this year. He played a good series against the Angels, and his two RBI single against Kazmir in game four was one of the real turning points of the series. With that being said, I think you're letting the fact that he is one of your favorite players get in the way of your objectivity. He is, at this point, an average player, and they received a quality starter in return. Also, I know you have an issue with Dunn/Logan, but come on, that cannot possibly be a deal breaker for you... As for the minor leaguer, I understand he has a high upside, but we have no idea what he'll become simply because he is so far away from the majors. It really is a good trade.

WHAT?!?! He struggled in the second half of the 2004 season! How can this possibly be a good move?

This really is amazing. Charlie Finley was trying to sell off his players. Literally, sell them. Kuhn enacted the "best interest of baseball clause", which, to the best of my knowledge, still exists today. In all the deals that you are talking about, the Yankees gave up some type of talent. I think this is a great trade for the Yankees, but I also think that Atlanta got a decent return (as do people like Dave Cameron and Keith Law). But yeah, great comparison. EDIT: Not to mention, while this might have been a salary dump, considering his WAR ratings the last few years, and his actual salary, he's very much worth it and there are plenty of teams that could have afforded him.