yankees228

I completely agree with this. I want Phil Hughes starting next year. EDIT: Because, it's also worth noting that before Wang came back, Hughes was definitely starting to throw the ball better. And before someone jumps all over that statement by posting his line in his last start of the year at Cleveland, if you go back and watch the game, you'll see that his line was not indicative of how well he was pitching. There were a number of soft hits, and a misplay by Gardner that led directly to a run.

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but it basically amounts to the same thing. I just don't understand how you can be more sold on Robertson than Hughes. I think, with Hughes' fastball, a lot of times the design was to miss up. When he was at his best, he was almost going exclusively to his fastball up in the zone, and having a ton of success with it. I don't see how you can call his success lucky, considering all the swings and misses he was getting, and the lack of hard hit balls off him. As for the playoff argument, you want to talk about luck? Lets take a look at what Robertson did in game two of the ALDS. He gave up a hard single, but the third base coach foolishly held Mauer against Gardner's arm. And then he made a bad pitch to Delmon Young, but he lined it right at Teixeira. That outing, his signature outing of the postseason, very easily could have turned out much differently. Granted, Hughes was bad in the postseason, but 6 1/3 innings is hardly significant in the grand scheme of things. And it's not like he can't pitch in the postseason, because lets not forget how effective he was in 2007.

As you guys have already discussed, and I've mentioned earlier in the thread, I don't bring in a guy that is going to tie up the DH spot. That's why, if I'm the Yankees, I let Matsui walk. It's unfortunate, but considering this roster, they have to leave the DH spot open.

Exactly. It's not worth giving up that kind of package for a guy that you're going to need to sit against lefties.

That's because the Yankees are a more successful organization, and because of their rich history. Jacko's point about the Yankees and the Mets is a valid one. EDIT: I didn't finish reading the rest of the thread. I apologize for stating things that have already been discussed.

I simply cannot believe that people are devaluing Major League Baseball championships. There are huge contributing factors (money), but it is so hard to win a championship, especially in this sport. Whether it's the 2007 Red Sox or the 2009 Yankees, both are tremendous accomplishments, and while money did play a role, it is extremely impressive nonetheless. I'll tell you, in my opinion, what is rather ironic about this whole thing: Red Sox fans, judging by the content of their posts, forgetting how difficult it is to win a championship. This isn't a knock at the Red Sox, by the way. I could care less that they went 86 years without a title. I probably haven't chanted the numbers, "1918", in my entire life. But it speaks to how difficult it is to win a championship, and the fact that people are forgetting about that is amazing to me.

That's reasonable, and the Yankees have a significantly larger margin of error than most teams. To me, when a team like the 2003 Florida Marlins the World Series, it's more impressive than the 2009 New York Yankes winning the World Series. No doubt about it. However, to me, any World Series victory (excluding the 1919 Cincinnati Reds) is impressive. It's just such a difficult feat to accomplish, and, for me, that's why this isn't a hollow accomplishment. Once again, it's worth remembering that this wasn't a wire to wire first place finish. This team wasn't in a fantastic position before the year started, and they certainly weren't in a fantastic position at times during the first half. Excluding all the performance issues, which I've already gone over many times in this thread, you personally posted articles about the players possibly being upset with Girardi, and the possibility of him losing the clubhouse. You also posted at least one story about the A-Rod's issues during the season, the guy who was the biggest reason they won the World Series, in my opinion. The Yankees, as a whole, tend to go as A-Rod goes. There was also a lot of concern, and justifiably so, about how Burnett and Pettitte would fair in the postseason. There was a lot of talk, especially on this board, that the Yankees were not built for a short series. That argument had some merit, but, for the most part, those guys really came through. I'm not going to sit here and act like this team is the 2003 Marlins or the 1991 Twins or any team that came from out of nowhere to win it all. But the Yankees had their fair share of issues this year, ones that people tend to forget. In my opinion, this was far from the most impressive baseball accomplishment you'll see, not even close, but it was still very impressive nonetheless.

TK, do you really feel that way? We both know that the Yankees have a huge financial advantage, but it takes so much more than that to win a championship in the wild card era. We also both know that there were a ton of question marks with this team before the season. Some of the posters on here are claiming like everyone knew the Yankees were the superior team since day one, but that is so far from the reality of the situation. So many of these guys, some unexpectedly, rebounded fantastically from last year (or the last couple years). The bullpen, which was also a huge question mark coming into the year, and had been a real issue in past years, performed great in the second half. In my opinion, that was a huge difference. And A-Rod, who some questioned, and some didn't, answered a lot of critics in the postseason. If you really do feel that way, I'm not going to try to convince you otherwise. If that's your opinion, I respect it, I'd just be a bit surprised.

Clear your inbox 26.

What you're missing with Jeter is that he is passed his prime, and had regressed over his previous two years. I don't see how that can be ignored, but so be it. As for A-Rod, it was a significant injury, they weren't doing the full surgery, so I don't see how someone can say he was definitely going to put up A-Rod type numbers upon return, but so be it. The Yankees did display their financial might with those trades, but I don't think that possibility was available at the trade deadline. Also, Nady was in the middle of a career year, and he was changing teams. No telling if he would be able to keep it up, because he didn't have a track record of doing that. Look, I think I showed, with legitimate evidence, why those guys were question marks. Apparently you disagree. Fair enough.

I'm not overplaying anything. I'm providing legitimate facts that back up my claims. I'm not saying those guys were going to have bad years, but there concern with them, and even more concern with others. You're taking Derek Jeter's numbers from the prime of his career. To me, that's completely irrelevant. We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. As for A-Rod, you completely ignored my entire point. Because of the injury concern, he was a huge question mark going into the year. There just isn't any way around it. They got Abreu for next to nothing. Considering the asking price for the available names this offseason, I find it hard to believe that the Yankees could have pulled off a similar deal. As for Nady, he would hardly be considered a difference maker. He's a nice piece, but he's not someone that is going to come in here and really change things. Regardless, they didn't give up any big pieces for those players (Tabata's stock had decreased dramatically). What player could they have gotten this trade deadline, that would have made a difference, and who the Yankees could have acquired for as little as they acquired Abreu and Nady with?

Again, I'm not downplaying the talent that was there. I stated in the post you quoted that this lineup had the potential to be great. However, how you can say that Derek Jeter and Alex Rodriguez were not question marks is absolutely ridiculous. Lets look at each by themselves. In 2006 Derek Jeter had one of his best seasons, producing a .343/.417/.483. The next year, 2007, he produced a slash line of .322/.388/.452. Still good, very good in fact, especially for a shortstop, but worse than he previous year. Then, in 2008, he produced a slash line of .300/.363/.408. That came out to be an OPS+ of 102, ever so slightly above average. Notice a trend here? Jeter was entering his 14th full season, and he was due to turn 35 years old during the year. If you don't think there was a distinct possibility that that trend would continue, you're kidding yourself. It also would have been reasonable to think that he would produce similar numbers to his 2008 season. You could even go as far as thinking that he would improve a bit. However, all things considered, you would have been laughed at if you suggested that he would finish the year with a slash line of .334/.406/.465, tying his second best OPS+ of his entire career. He outperformed expectations by a wide margin. Now lets look at A-Rod. It was reported in early March that he would have to drop out of the World Baseball Classic because of a hip injury. After his was initially evaluating, there was a lot of speculation that he would have to undergo surgery that would keep him out for up to four months. Essentially, it would have been a lost year. Then it came out that they were going to attempt a hybrid surgery, that wouldn't completely correct the problem (remember, it was said at the time that he would definitely need a follow up surgery at some point), but would allow him to play with it. It was also made clear that there was a good chance, even if the surgery was successful, that he was not going to be 100%. Recently, A-Rod has even admitted that, at times after the surgery, he wasn't even sure if he was going to play this year (believe him or not, but the facts back him up). After hitting some home runs after returning, A-Rod plummeted into one of the worst slumps of his career, and there was a lot of concern over whether or not he was truly healthy. If that isn't an enormous question mark, all the way through June, then I don't know what is. Couple that with the other question marks, that you haven't disputed, and you have a lineup with the potential to be great, but also the potential to be very average. And there's a limit to how much they could have corrected in season, because there wasn't that much available, and the Yankees have shown a reluctance in recent years not to mortgage their future for a quick fix. That's what it would have taken to make a big deal in season, and it is extremely far from a certainty that the Yankees would have made that trade.

What aspect of my post is not 100% factual? At this point, considering what they accomplished, everyone looks at the Yankees' lineup the way you do. However, before the season, it was an entirely different story. I'm not saying that all of those guys were going to have bad years. If you think I'm saying that, you're misinterpreting my post. However, all things considered, there were a ton of question marks. You almost never see a year where an entire lineup, from top to bottom, outperforms expectations. If you think about what happened to some of those guys the past few years, and what was reasonably expected of them this year, what actually transpired is pretty remarkable.

It's worth noting that most of the guys in that lineup outperformed expectations (some did it by a lot). There were a ton of questions surrounding the Yankees' offense before the year started, which are forgotten at this point. There were a lot of articles written claiming that the Yankees, going into the year, only had one non-question mark in the lineup (Teixeira).

I love how Dipre called him 26-7.

Right, but the argument seemed to be that the Yankees "bought" their championship because the three free agents they acquired last offseason were the driving force behind their improvement. This is what I disagree with. I only brought the Red Sox into this (again, I don't think they bought their championship), because they also went out and signed some key free agents in the offseason before 2007, very much like the Yankees did before 2009 (albeit on a much smaller scale).

Well, when I said the bullpen, I should have added the caveat that I was referring to the back end, and what they did in the second half of the season (when they pulled away from the Red Sox). Obviously lack of production from guys like Jose Veras and Edwar Ramirez earlier in the year is going to inflate the numbers. I wasn't clear enough there, my fault. Anyway, my only issue is that I don't think it's fair to single those three guys out, because so many different players played an enormous role in the turnaround from 2008 to 2009. I've already stated the reasons why I feel this way, and as I said to Dipre, it just seems like we keep going over the same stuff. At this point, we'll have to agree to disagree I guess.

And I would argue that Burnett was just above average. Sabathia's 2009 season wasn't that much of an improvement over Mussina's 2008 season. Teixeira had an excellent year, and it was better than Giambi's 2008, but Giambi was not one of the problems last year, and he was very productive offensively during his time in New York. First base has never really been a problem for the Yankees this decade, with the exceptions of 2004 and 2007. I know I've said this before, but I don't think this argument is going anywhere. I feel like you're ignoring key factors, and you feel like I'm ignoring key factors. Unfortunately, we're not going to cover any new ground in this argument, so our opinions are going to likely say the same. I think, at this point, we might as well just call it quits on this loss. Fair enough?

The problem I have is that you guys are saying the three free agents were what made the difference. A lot of different things made the difference, and I don't think those three free agents should stand out above the rest.

Yeah, that's a pretty strong statement. I'm a huge Yankees fan, and they have had an incredibly rich history, but so many other sports franchises have enjoyed incredible success, and to just select one out of the group isn't fair.

Drew and Matsuzaka were two significant pieces of that team. See, so many other guys on that team stepped up, and that's why I don't say they bought the 2007 championship. Granted, Drew and Matsuzaka didn't have the impact that Sabathia, Burnett, and Teixeira had, but considering the Boston Red Sox didn't even make the playoffs in 2006, it's easy to label those two the difference makers. By the logic of some here, not my own, the Boston Red Sox bought their 2007 championship.