yankees228

I get that his career home run rate, which is already subpar, might become even worse at NYS, but that is hardly enough to justify calling this a bad deal.

I really don't think it's fair to cite what Vazquez did in 2004 as evidence that this isn't a good deal.

While he 2008 ERA was rather high, his FIP was 3.74 and his xFIP was 3.85. In my opinion, he was better than he 2008 numbers indicated. Since 2006, his WAR ratings have been... 4.8 5.1 4.8 6.6 In the AL East, I don't expect Vazquez to duplicate his 2009 season, but he should slide right in as an excellent number three, or even number two starter. In my opinion, this was a fantastic deal for the Yankees. They get Vazquez for one year, at an affordable salary (when you consider what he has been worth the last four years), and with his contract, and Pettitte's contract expiring after this year, they're primed to dip into the 2010 free agent class. It's important to keep in mind that, even if the Yankees don't make any more moves, Brett Gardner is as good, if not better than Melky. Cabrera's WAR last year was 1.4, while Gardner's was 2.1. I don't know much about the prospect, so I really can't comment on him, but I understand he is a long way from the big leagues, with a lot of upside. He's probably the biggest casualty of the deal.

Well, we completely disagree on Holliday, but that subject has been touched too often around here, so I won't be bother. However, lets say they do sign Holliday. Considering what Cashman has done this offseason, don't you think it would be smart to at least give him the benefit of the doubt for the time being? On top of that, even if they make a terrible move, it's hardly a reason to be "disgusted" with a team.

I don't think they will get Holliday, but why would you be disgusted?

Yeah, I'm not sure who plays left. They might just be willing to go with an outfield of Swisher, Gardner, and Granderson (probably Granderson in center), but who knows.

Wow. I really like this move.

This isn't necessarily fair. Cano and Cabrera are two players who are entering their prime years, so it's a reasonable possibility that they actually might improve, or maintain, what they did last season. In addition, if A-Rod plays a full year, he'll contribute more offensively than he did in 2009.

To me, most of the stuff in this thread simply isn't debatable. The Red Sox make a lot of money, and they spend a lot of money. Fact. The Yankees make more money, so they spend more money. Fact. Year in and year out both of these teams are able to compete for a championship because they're able to spend a lot of money, and, for the most part, they have people in the front office that make good decisions.

Not saying I disagree, just pointing out that you can't cite their career numbers as evidence in your argument. EDIT: Career numbers of Damon and Matsui.

The only numbers that are important (for Matsui and Damon), are their numbers last year, because we're discussing whether or not the Yankees are going to regress offensively.

Holy s***, imagine if Cashman shoved Jose Molina up your ass? I can't take this stuff seriously anymore. Gom, you think that Molina is an extremely important part of the Yankees. That's fine, and while I disagree, I respect that opinion. However, when you take that kind of extreme position, you just cannot justify (if you can ever justify it) talking down to people who disagree with your opinion.

I think this post perfectly encapsulates the opinion of most people on this board.

Don't you think all those pitchers coming to the Yankees and having a worse ERA might have to do with the AL East?

No, but teams have won that weren't in that top payroll group. Money is one of the big reasons why, in MLB, the league is split into the three groups I've mentioned. It not nearly as big a reason in other sports, but, for whatever reason, the results are similar. Again, that has been my only point all along.

I acknowledge all your points about baseball off the field. It's undeniable that baseball is different than other sports. Regardless, for whatever reason (and not just the crapshoot factor, because that doesn't account for what I talked about in my previous post), baseball does not yield different results than the other sports. This is also undeniable.

But the crapshoot factor doesn't account for the fact that in all sports, you have your teams that consistently contend for a championship, your teams that don't, and your exceptions. However, even if you want to talk about the crapshoot factor, it's still one of the things that creates parity in baseball, and causes it to be no different than other sports on the field, which has been my only contention.

OK, but I want to clarify, just based on your response, that baseball is not only the same based on the fact that the games need to be played on the field, but based on the fact that the results are similar on the field.

Absolutely. But in terms of certain teams being able to have extended runs, and certain teams being unable to, for whatever reason, baseball is no different. I've never tried to argue that baseball isn't different from these other sports off the field. I acknowledge that. But on the field, where it counts, it really isn't different.

How am I swerving from the main point? I acknowledge MLB's flaws. However, people are so quick to make general statements about baseball being an uneven playing field, when compared to other sports, and this simply isn't true. In the end, what matters is what goes happens on the field, and baseball isn't really different than other sports. If baseball was to fix the inequality off the field, in my opinion, they would be able to reach an unprecedented level of parity. I wouldn't have a problem with them doing this. All I'm saying is that the results prove that baseball isn't really different than other sports.