yankees228

But Lawton was not useful for the Yankees...

Right, I know that Crosby was playing a lot, all I was doing was listing the guys that I thought should have been outfielders on the team. I worded the part about Berg wrong, what I meant was that he does not swing the trade in either teams favor in my opinion. Look, I think that because Lawton contributed negatively to the Yankees you cannot consider it a win for the Yankees. You disagree. Neither of us, at this point, are going to change our opinions on this particular trade. I really don't think there's a point to continuing to discuss this particular trade.

Wow quite a start to his Red Sox career for Jason Bay.

I understand that Crosby was playing some outfield at the same time as Lawton. I was merely stating that Crosby was better for the team than Lawton, and you could make the case that Womack would have been too. Also, Berg clearly has no bearing on this trade. Matt Lawton made the Yankees worse during his time with the team. That does have bearing on whether it's a win or a loss.

But you've been focusing a lot on what some of these guys did with the Yankees. When it comes down to it, Lawton played poorly with the Yankees. EDIT: You're referring to this trade as a win for the Yankees. This implies that it was beneficial to the Yankees. Therefore his prior successes have no bearing on whether or not it was a win for the Yankees. This trade was not beneficial to the Yankees, and therefore is not a win.

He made positive contributions, but in the end his overall contribution was negative. Tony Womack and Bubba Crosby might have been able to provide things on field and on the base paths that Lawton could not have. On top of that Bubba Crosby had an OPS+ of 70 during the 2005 season with the Yankees. This trade was not a win for the Yankees, but even if you choose to consider it a win, the acquisition of Matt Lawton by the New York Yankees does not add to your overall argument. You're welcome to respond, but it's pointless for us to continue to discuss Matt Lawton because we're both repeating ourselves and we're not going to agree.

I just admitted it wasn't a fluke... EDIT: Clearly it was poor word choice, but I really think you're missing the point when it comes to this trade and Matt Lawton's time with the Yankees.

I would admit that it is not fair to call his time with PIT a fluke, but they got him during a stretch where he was playing very poorly. The underlying factor is that he contributed negatively to the Yankees.

They would have been better with guys like Tony Womack and Bubba Crosby on the roster in addition to the obvious choices of Gary Sheffield, Hideki Matsui, and Bernie Williams. On top of that Ruben Sierra was due to return soon from injury.

Then you can make the argument that the trade shouldn't have been made. Lawton played very poorly with the Yankees and he was only slightly better with the Cubs. As crespoblows pointed out, I don't think it would have been hard to find someone who would put up an OPS+ of 39.

And JHB, you make it seem like he had a significant drop off when he came to the Yankees. Yes, he was good with the Pirates, but you said that he played pretty well with the Cubs. With the Cubs Lawton had an OBP of .289 and a SLG% of .308. He had a OPS+ of 55. His batting runs and batting wins were both negative. Matt Lawton did not play pretty well with the Cubs. That makes it look like his good play with the Pirates was the fluke instead of his poor play with the Yankees. Matt Lawton, was not playing well before the Yankees got him and he did not play well after the Yankees got him. This is not a win for the Yankees.

I don't really think that matters in the context of our the debate (and who knows who could have come up from the minor leagues or who else could have been acquired in a trade). The Yankees received a player who had a negative effect on their Major League Club and the Cubs received a player who had no effect on their Major League Club.

Ok, but as I've already stated, having Matt Lawton on the Yankees actually hurt them. Therefore, to break it down to it's simplest form, they would have been better without Matt Lawton ever having played a game for them. It's not a loss in terms of who they gave up, because Berg never amounted to anything, but it is a loss for the Yankees because Lawton contributed negatively. You could make the argument that it is a negative for both teams. The Cubs gave up Lawton who was a decent player for them, so it's a loss for them. And it's a loss for the Yankees because Lawton hurt their Major League team. I don't consider this a win.

Ugh! Talk about really missing Cano. Awful turn by Betemit. EDIT: So far so good for the offense.

Well, I'm pretty sick today so I have nothing to do besides post here and watch the Yankees game lol. So...Mussina vs. Weaver. Why do I get the feeling that watching this game will make me feel even worse... But, no need to be negative. Cano is out today because of a sore hand that may have contributed to his recent struggles. EDIT: After that first inning I don't think I need to see JHB's analysis lol. It looked to me like Moose got at least three or four calls and two of them resulted in strikeouts.

I understand that Berg played worse than Lawton, however Lawton played on the Major League team where team results matter, whereas Berg played in the minor leagues where team results don't matter (obviously to some people they do but they don't in the overall scheme of things). In my opinion, you could make the argument that this trade is in fact a loss for the Yankees because Lawton was given the opportunity to contribute negatively to the Major League team while Berg was never afforded that same opportunity. I meant to say a win for the Astros (based on your theories). My fault. However, as I stated in the above paragraph, I think that can be argued both ways...due to the fact that the Major League player being traded may contribute negatively, while the minor league player never does. I'm very curious to see the rest of your analysis once your database is finished. I'm not suggesting that Cashman is so much smarter than everyone else. All, I'm saying is that different teams may use different methods of evaluating players. What I'm trying to say is (I'm assuming you've read Moneyball) is that Billy Beane was able to make some really nice trades because he evaluated players differently. In your opinion these trades were wins for the Yankees, but the other GMs may not agree simply because they're evaluating their players differently. Also, I do understand that this can't be the whole story.

And, JHB, on top of everything I think you might be making a false assumption about how some of these GMs think. You're evaluating all of these trades based on newer age statistics, which I completely agree with and I don't think any other way is accurate. However, you're making the assumption that the teams the Yankees are trading with are evaluating players the same way. It is very possible that they aren't, and might just be evaluating these players based on visual scouting. Now, I'm not pretending to be smarter than Major League Baseball GMs, but I'm just saying that from publications I have read in the past I'm just not so sure they use the same methods of player evaluation that have been tossed around in this thread.

But in the case of Lawton it can be argued (as it was by crespoblows) that he contributed negatively. Even though the player that the Yankees gave up never made it to the majors, that might be better than the negative contribution that Lawton provided. I see in a previous post that you, through another forum post, are discussing the Hawkins trade. By your logic, if Hawkins spends any time in the big leagues with the Astros and whoever the Yankees received never does than it is a win for the Yankees (even though you've made the point that Hawkins is horrible). That, to me, doesn't make too much sense. On top of that, do you honestly think that receiving players such as Sal Fasano, Tim Redding, and Matt Lawton contributes to your theory? As a previous poster has mentioned (I can't find the quote) you can pick up guys that all over the place if you want, either in trade or in the free agent pool. Receiving below average MLB players like that really does not help your argument in my opinion.

Haha, that was easily the best part of the whole thing.

One of the Twins players got hit by a pitch when he had shown bunt, but the third base umpire ruled that he didn't pull the bat back (which he clearly did). Gardenhire went nuts and got ejected. Then it got out of hand lol as SOTK pointed out. Oh, and the game was in Minnesota, as I'm sure you guys all know at this point.

And Manny hits into a double play in the ninth inning when he was the winning run.

Ugh...I had listened to this game and just got a chance to see the highlights. What is really unfortunate is that the game winning hit that Hunter got easily could have been a double play and killed the rally. For those who didn't see it they had runners at first and third with nobody out against Rivera in the ninth. Hunter hit a hard grounder to the first base side of the mound that was going right to Cano as he was taking a step towards the bag. The runner at third was not going on contact so Cano could have stepped on second and thrown to first without the run scoring. Unfortunately the ball hit the top of the mound, and because Cano was playing in, it bounced over his head. I guess when things are going well other things tend to go your way and vice versa. For what it's worth, I'm not trying to make excuses, just an observation.

Really tough game. For whatever reason Mo just isn't quite as sharp in non-save situations as he is in save situations. Can't blame Girardi for pitching him in these spots though, he's their best and eventually he should turn this around. ORS, I saw your explanation for why the Angels have been lucky this year in terms of scoring runs, and I think it makes a lot of sense. However, they just seem like they are far and away the best team in baseball because of their superior starting pitching and very solid lineup. They can just beat you in so many different way (win 12-6 on thursday and then 1-0 tonight). It just seems like they can win in a slugfest with anyone, but they also have excellent starting pitcher, especially the top three (Lackey, Saunders, and Santana). In my opinion all three of them should have been in the all-star game (I understand that Lackey missed some time but he pitched so great when he was healthy that he deserved it) and how often do you see more than half of a starting rotation on the all star roster?

I wanted to say that I completely agree with most of the points that Jacko made (and crespoblows) and I actually think it really helps to reveal a flaw in JHB's logic. JHB, in my opinion you're focusing too much on what these guys did after their trades. Most of these guys were not good before the trade and their teams simply did not want them anymore. Some of them (mainly Chacon) miraculously turned it around (and then next year proved it was completely a fluke) for a few months. That really is nothing more than pure luck on the Yankees part. The Yankees were throwing darts against a wall during some of these seasons, because they were having problems, and some of them happened to stick. Look, as crespo said, guys like Sal Fasano, Tim Redding, and Matt Lawton were not good at all on the Yankees. To call those trades anything other than a wash is unfair. Not only that, but even if you call them wins for the Yankees, the slight margin of victory really does not help your case or further prove your point.