26 Reasons to Hate Us

maybe 2007 is a better example - DiceK, Drew, Lugo, etc.

5 years 80M for a 32 y.o. pitcher who cant stay healthy. awesome.

there were some other throw ins: http://yankees.lhblogs.com/2008/11/13/yankees-acquire-swisher-from-white-sox/

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/75577-colorado-rockies-trade-buzz-willy-taveras-to-ny-yankees-for-ian-kennedy

Wasn't there an article almost exactly like this one around this time last year?

yes, just like the singular noun of data is datum. they have similar latin roots.

contemporary usage is just a polite way of saying 'bastardized by americans'

CLUTCH

Jeff Karstens perfect through 6 vs. the d-backs holy s***.

First off, the 'fleecings' have been grossly overstated in this thread. We are talking about maybe 2-3 deals that could possibly be construed as such. As for the offseason, why make trades when you have the cash to sign whoever you want? As JHB mentioned earlier, there isn't the dearth of talent in the offseason that there is at the trade deadline. But for the sake of argument, let's take a look at a few offseason trades in the same time span: Jaret Wright and cash to O's for Chris Britton: Getting anything for Jaret Wright is a win. Randy Johnson and cash to Arizona for Luis Vizcaino, Ross Ohlendorf, Alberto Gonzalez and Steven Jackson: What Vizcaino did alone makes this a win for us. Ross contributed some and then helped us land Nady/Marte. Win. Tyler Clippard to Nats for John Albaladejo: Wash. Maybe Clippard turns into something and this becomes a loss. Too early to tell. Gary Sheffield to Tigers for Anthony Claggett, Humberto Sanchez and Kevin Whelan: Short term loss, although Sheffield is decomposing in front of our eyes. If Sanchez turns into the pitcher most project him to be, this is a win. Ben Julianel to Marlins for Ron Villone: Ben who? Win. Tony Womack and cash to Reds for Kevin Howard and Benjamin Himes: Neither Howard nor Himes ever made the majors. The Reds got 18 ABs out of Womack. Still, it's a slight win for the Reds. Still looks like Cashman is maintaining a winning record, albeit not a perfect one. He trades aging players with value for prospects (long-term philosophy). He includes cash in deals to get better players in return (significant cash advantage). These aren't just cliches; they are exemplified by his transactions. In the words of JHB, "There's no trade that, using hindsight, shouldn't have been done."

They are excuses used when your WARP metric doesn't call it a win. Are you really calling Betemit for Proctor a win? How much value does Betemit have? His VORP is -0.7 and WORP is 0.1. That's a tie at best to me. You already did the work man. Call a win a win, a loss a loss, and a tie a tie as you defined it on page 3 with your WARP metric. The only difference would be non-factor moves, where neither team benefits at all - say a DFA'd player traded for a minor leaguer who never contributes. The Hawkins trade is a great example. Nowhere in the last 3 years do I see 6 significant wins. 6 wins by your metric? Sure. But probably only 2-3 significant ones.

Why? Simple. Because Cashman, based on his deadline record since 2005, is a better GM than King George. If the Pirates get a new GM next year and start making shrewd moves, what would you attribute it to - a league-wide conspiracy, or the new GM in charge?

And I contend that this 'point of noted change,' as you mentioned in an earlier post (below) coincides with Cashman actually taking over personnel decisions in 2005. Pretty simple connection, one without assumption.

JHB I really think you are skewing your statistical improbabilities to suit your argument. You don't count the Yankee losses as defined by your WARP1 criteria as actual losses because they were too slight for you, or for some other excuse: You also give way too much credit to trades that, according to your own metric, were apparent ties or complete non-factors as Yankee trade wins: Not every trade is win or lose, which is why your coin flipping example, and counting trades that were non-factors or ties is not sound. the way i see it there are four outcomes: 1. Win 2. Tie 3. Lose 4. Non-factor Using your WARP projections from years past and projecting this years trades (Pudge and Nady/Marte as a win, Hawkins and Alberto Gonzalez as a non-factors), I see 2 losses, 2 ties, 6 wins and 2 Non-factors.

I think it's silly to only look at deadline trades. If teams like the Pirates truly are doing the Yankees a favor, wouldn't they do it year round? As Gom pointed out, if you look at all trades throughout the course of Cashman's tenure since he gained control, you will find a more normal distribution of success.

Of course there isn't a level playing field. But the inequities can better be explained by facts (Yankees money advantage, differences in talent evaluation/team philosophies/GM ability from team to team, etc.) than conspiracy theories, no?

Paying more than he would have if ARod had not opted out? Sure. Chances of ARod not opting out after the year he had, with Boras as his agent? 0%. Regardless of the actual outcome of the new contract, it doesn't change Hank's possible motivation at the time.

Fair enough. Oh that's right, the date of the articles must be the same as the dates of the quotes The articles written were published a day apart. In this case, the quotes also happen to be a day apart, a day earlier for each. As for Hank I am confident that he said many quoteworthy things over a 4 day span. I won't bother looking it up. Like I mentioned earlier, however, there is a chance that Hank said what he did to keep ARod's price down. Colletti has nothing to gain by alleging tampering on two separate occasions.