Gom

Ok, let me make it easier for you Jacko. When presented with a choice, as a large market team with financial resources bigger than anyone else, potential long-term gain, which should be viewed as high risk, potential high reward, should be sacrificed to for short-term gain. The reason being, with the fiscal resources at their disposal, the Yankees have the means to overcome any errors in judgement in trading away their potential high reward players by re-acquiring such players when they become free agents or to acquire players either by more trades or in the free agent market with similar attributes. There. Make you feel better? In other words, the farm system, it's rankings, all that ******** don't matter. What matters is the position of the parent club. Everything else is secondary.

I'm not killing Hughes. I would have traded him in a heartbeat for Santana., however. What gets to me is that I don't look at the minors because they don't interest me. However, when a player makes it to the majors, I watch him. I watch how he bats, how he strides, how he runs the bases, his velocity, etc. Hughes's velocity did not come as advertised. He's 92-93. So he has an average fastball. Maybe he was hurt, I don't know. He has a big breaking curveball that he can't control that well. If he gains the ability to control it, and can locate his fastball, he'll be decent. Kennedy? Poor velocity [87-88]. Poor control. Lack of secondary pitches. Now...if he gains 4-5 MPH on his fastball, locates it with pinpoint control, and develops a secondary and tertiary pitch, then yes...he'll be fine. However, you can say that about pretty much any prospect. If he gets better, he'll be good. Jacko and Cashman believe in the same thing. That getting older will miraculously make these players get better. Control and creation of a secondary and tertiary pitch is possible. Increasing the speed on your fastball generally isn't.

You are really too dumb to understand the quote. Someone explain it to him. I have lost my patience for stupidity.

Reread the quote.

So you'd rather have Moose than Santana? God help your patients. Seriously. What amazes me is that to get through medical school today, you need a high level of intelligence. Unfortunately, you trust what you read in the papers the same as what you read what the Yankees telling you. Note to Jacko: What the Yankees release is not in a TEXTBOOK. You may be a very knowledgeable doctor, but you're about the dumbest evaluator in talent I have ever met. It's frustrating that someone of such intelligence is that clueless. I highly doubt you have ever watched Kennedy or Hughes pitch. If you did, you wouldn't be so high on either one. You still haven't told me what it is about Kennedy or Hughes you see that will make them successful. Other than age. You know what? If you suck at 23, you will probably suck at 33. Hughes at least has a decent fastball, and a big curve. I think if he can ever control his curve, he could be serviceable. Kennedy? No speed, no good secondary pitches, not that great control. What's you analysis, doc?

For this year and the next, I would take Santana over Youk, Ellsbury, and Buchholz. After that, I don't know. Finding a good firstbaseman is much easier than an ace. Say what you want about Beckett or Dice-K, but Santana is a better pitcher. I value SP over 1B any day of the week.

You can honestly tell me that Ellsbury is close to Santana in value? You can say that with a straigt face??? Find me one other person here who agrees with that. No, you're not allowed to bring back that idiot JHB. 26, here's the link. Now you can go assassinate Cashman. http://www.denverpost.com/ci_9964724

Also, i't not fair including Youkilis, since that wasn't a prospect for veteran deal. I wouldn't have made the deal based on the similarity in their numbers OPS-wise and the difference in age. So discount that deal completely. Any statistic that shows Ellsbury as more valuable than Santana should be immediately discarded as ever being valid. Period. Are you taking up JHB's position as resident statistical idiot?

Absolutely. Santana is worth more than Youkilis, Ellsbury, and Buchholz. I don't think there is much doubt there. Once again, the complaint about money. Why do you care about money when you're the 2nd richest team in baseball? Your front office has gotten you so focused on money, you probably care more about their money then the fact they charge you hundreds of dollars to watch the game....and they don't go sign the big money players. Like Barnum said, there's one born every minute.

You don't win every deal. Would your team be better with Helton and Santana, or Ellsbury, Buchholz, and Youkilis? Santana alone is better than everyone you have. No guarantee Helton would have gotten injured.

I feel the same way about you. Maybe if it was Cashman who had brought up the last wave [Jeter, Pettitte, Mo, Bernie] I'd feel more confident. If you remember correctly, it was Stick who brought them up. Cashman did nothing but ride the wave of Stick [and Watson, who you could say took over for Stick]. Since Cashman came up, he has drafted one good player. One. In ten f***ing years. That's Joba. Not a single other player he has drafted has had a significant impact. Not one. Cano? Free Agent. Wang? Free Agent. Name a player that he drafted that made a difference. The only one you have is Joba. Period. Ten years. One good draft pick. When the Cashman experiment is over, then you'll realize. Until you do it up here, I don't care. All three...Joba, Hughes, and Kennedy had good numbers in the minors. Only one will ever have any success up here. The other will be ok, the other will be bagging groceries in a few years. Wake up Jacko. These rookies are for the most part garbage. Let me ask you this: What do you see about Kennedy that you like? Have you watched him pitch? Tell me exactly what you like about him. I really want to know.

It was thinking like yours that didn't want to give up Kennedy and Cabrera for Santana. That youth movement doesn't work as well as you'd like it to. It never will. You will get lucky with young pitching. Look at the young pitchers the Yankees and Red Sox have brought up. Hughes Kennedy Chamberlain Lester Buchholz Hansen Delcarmen ETC....You can list any young pitcher the Yankees brought up, or the Red Sox, etc. The only two who have done anything of value were Joba and Lester. For both sides, how many times did we have each respectively have a chance at getting a decent player for any of the above? Tried and true baseball acumen. Trading a prospect for veterans benefits the team acquiring the veteran the majority of the time. Imagine if the Red Sox had traded for Santana...they wanted Ellsbury and Buchholz. From us, they wanted Kennedy and Wang. We could have had Fuentes for Kennedy. The true idiots are the one's who think that holding onto these "prized prospects" would benefit either team more than using them to acquire tried and true veterans. The Yankees streak of making the playoffs is over. Cashman's tenure should end with it. Gene Michael came out and said that when given an opportunity, you had to go get a Santana. Imagine if Santana replaced the 0-4 Kennedy. That's about 3-4 games minimum in the standings. The Rockies wanted Fuentes. How many games could Fuentes have saved, or held the lead, in just this road trip? Who's the idiot now?

I like swimming. It's just that no one follows it here. I follow it, as a casual fan, but I get more into it during the Olympics. If you need more reason to be a swimming fan....here you go. Amanda Beard, US team captain. She can be on my relay team any day, any time.

I hope he comes back from the grave to kill Cashman zombie-style.

Here's the link: http://www.nbcolympics.com/video/player.html?assetid=0811_hd_swb_hl_l0194&channelcode=sportsw

Yankees play the Twins today. f*** the Yankees. I hope Cashman gets run over by a Zamboni after being mugged by Kirby Puckett while waiting in line to go to the bathroom at a bar. f***.

Whoa! No one told me of this little caveat! DAMN IT! LOL!

It just wouldn't be right without the defending champion.

There is some truth to the pitching with a lead argument. A pitcher with a lead should be more aggressive for the following reason: Conservation. By minimizing his pitches per inning, he can go longer and save the bullpen. Pitchers should simply throw strikes and let the hitter make it happen. When a pitcher walks a batter with a decent lead, it shows an inability to understand the game situation, a lack of talent, or a lack of control [obviously] of his pitches. Giving up a run or two quickly is more desirable than giving up no runs and wasting 35 pitches to do so. That's the mentality of pitching with a lead, as far as I see it.

Thanks SFOC. Team name... FIRE CASHMAN