Gom

Of course I did. That one source was one more than yours, even until now. In fact, there were people quoted in it, Colletti to be exact. Where's ONE QUOTE, ONE ALLEGATION, ANYWHERE...that supports your claim? Guilty until proven innocent? You're a moron. Ok. Disprove the Red Sox didn't cheat. Show me proof they didn't. The premise is "innocent until proven guilty". This quote was singularly the dumbest thing ever posted on the history of this website, or at least since I've been here. For that line alone, you should never post here again. Ever. Just disappear. No one in their right mind would waste 30 seconds trying to prove what you are trying to prove. If you want an idea of the analysis us BASEBALL fans here would like, take a look at "Kilometric". I, for one, am interested in such information. In fact, I believe I'd be interested in the information you post as long as it doesn't pertain to the Yankees or the Red Sox. I simply believe that you are incapable of impartial analysis. It is simply beyond your level of comprehension. You brought up Jeter's intangibles. Most at Talksox here know I believe in no such thing. The only thing this thread has shown is this: You are by far the most clueless person I have ever met here.

Don't bother Jacko. That's also cheating. In fact, in his book, if you look up Yankees, the definition is cheating. Anyone else want to chime in?

I did not know this. This is very bad news for the Yankees.

Holy s***...someone who uses statistics AND logic in an objective manner to formulate a conclusion? I didn't know this kind of intelligence existed on this board anymore. Hat's off to you.

I think the Red Sox could have gotten away with it because it was a Japanese team, and this kind of stuff goes on over there from what I remember reading. If you feel like expanding the research, go ahead. It would be interesting to see how certain teams and GMs do. I'm guessing the better teams do better. Go figure. Once again, there is no external factor. Your sample size is too small, and the inherent risks associated with the integrity of the game, both to the team and to the individial as well as the sport, are too high. You can't even speak about another player under contract or you'd be tampering. Did the Red Sox tamper with Drew? Probably. Is there proof? No. Did the Yankees cheat? No. Is there proof? No. Do I believe that any team cheated when it came to trades? No. Even the Red Sox? No. Do teams bend the rules with free agents and Japanese players? Probably. Why? Because it's nearly impossible to get caught. In fact, it's pretty much impossible without a paper trail. Another thing...most of these owners are rich beyond our wildest dreams BEFORE they bought the team. Pohlad could buy Steinbrenner many times over, he just doesn't want to spend on his team. I don't think that Steinbrenner could bribe, or Henry could bribe the other owners. I'm waiting for others to chime in. That will be the ultimate proof that you are lost. The only chance you have is that Red Sox fans side with you because they're Red Sox fans. Tell you what. Take this thread to say...an Astros or Brewers cite. See what they say? You wouldn't get 10% of the vote. Once again, for those of you are interested in chiming in, I'll quote my own post:

Epstein cheated. No way he signed Borowski unless he cheated. Just ask JHB.

Stop doing this. It lengthens the thread for no reason. No, JHB, your logic is not only flawed, it's outright useless. You use analysis from one year's deadline deals, and then apply them to one team's deadline deals over three years...four years later. Doesn't work. You're not even compaing apples to oranges. That would be a stretch to assume so. Your statistical variance is outside what would be accepted as the norm. Is there any logical fan that believes that deadline deals that are the result in less than one win is the norm over 70% of the time? Do you want anyone with a base high school education to believe this? Does anyone outside of JHB believe this? However, this is what your "statistical analysis" has shown us. Why is this value almost definitely incorrect. Sample size. Look up the definition. Let me educate you in what sample size means. If a player hits .300 over 1000 ABs, he will get a hit 300 times in 1000 ABs. However, if you shrink the sample size to 3 ABs, he will have an average of 0. .333, .667, or 1.000. Only one of them is remotely close to his "actual" average, and even that can be considered a high degree of error based on the model. The other three outcomes are so far off the "actual" that the entire research is considered useless. This is the essence of the sample size error that I keep pointing out to you. No disagreement here. In fact, it's pretty much what I've been saying all along, when you take out the anti-Yankee bias and your point to due research as futile as yours. Go on. Claiming it's cheating is just plain stupidity, and if you worked in baseball and made such a statement, it would probably cost you your job. Back to the example of 3 ABs. Your sample size is too small, both as your master and your control. If you understand what these terms mean, then you understand what I mean. Not true at all. This is where your argument falls completely apart. That's like saying 11 ABs is sufficient. You've got to look at hundreds of deals to figure this out, and even then, that's not enough. You've got to factor in so many intangibles, such as team motive, upcoming players, future free agent market, agent involved, etc. This is not as simple as a batting average, where you either get a hit or an out, and is easily quantifiable. Look at the Zambrano/Kazmir deal. Although I'm a Yankee fan, it was all over the papers here that Peterson, the Mets pitching coach, said he could fix Zambrano in "ten minutes" and that Kazmir was at least three years away. Based on his reccommendation, the Mets made the deal. Would you dare equate the Rays trade as "cheating"? Maybe the Rays bribed Peterson. Did you ever take a class on logic? The very aspect that you are trying to pass off as scientific evidence such a small sample size as legitimate shows off one probable thing. If you passed the class, you probably cheated. [i really couldn't resist this one LOL!] Truthfully, I'd rather engage in meaningful discussion, but you don't really bring much to the table. So do inane comments from Red Sox fans. Your point? I'm praying that this is a joke. I'll assume that #2 and #3 is attempted as tongue in cheek, so I'll address number one only. a) What you're saying is that the Yankees bribe other teams. Ludicrous. Back to the original point. I swear, you remind of the chick from the Matrix movie, when she got stabbed and didn't die for what felt like ten minutes. You're as good as dead here, but you just keep talking. I swear, you have nothing to say...yet you still speak. The Yankees are not bribing other teams. I've brought to everyone's attention earlier the very real possibility of your Red Sox bribing Japanese teams, and I let it go just to prove my point. You are saying the Yankees are bribing other team executives or money under the table to other owners. In all my time here at Talksox, the most useless and baseless allegation ever. This isn't even about the Yankees. I wouldn't believe a single one of these allegations if it were any two teams in baseball. There is just way too much risk involved in baseball for the teams bribing, getting bribed, and the sport in general. Just ask Pete Rose. Seriously, you are stating that the Yankees are cheating on what is probably the weakest statistical argument in the history of Talksox. Show me any proof of cheating from anyone in the baseball business. You know why you haven't? BECAUSE IT DOES NOT EXIST. What you're saying is that teams give Yankees preferential treatment due to revenue sharing. So Cashman goes up to the Angels, and says...if you don't trade us Molina, we won't sign that big name free agent and throw in 50 million in revenue sharing that is split up amongst X number of teams. Did the Phillies get money from revenue sharing? Did the Angels? You'd figure they'd be trading with the Marlins every week if this was the case? c) Etc. Your strongest argument so far. Skipping the rest of your post that has no bearing. You are demeaning yourself. However, I don't take things personally, but I'd like to know how this pans out. Not just for the Yankees, but all teams over a few years period. It would be interesting reading. There we go. So...based on JHB's painstaking, very long research, he's come to the conclusion that external factors, such as bribes/cheating are major factors in the Yankees recent deadline trading success. I postulate, without hundreds of pages of Excel spreadsheets, that due to external factors, such as team intent, payroll, upcoming free agents, etc., and wait....I will also say luck, because this is actually a game that's played on a field and not on a spreadsheet, as well as the fact that I'm alluding to, sample size, is way too small to back up his research. To shorten it up for those of you still reading. I say the Yankees deadline dealing success is mainly due to their ability to absorb payroll and they've been lucky [Chacon: 1-7, 4.09 ERA with Rockies, 7-3 2.85 ERA with Yankees.] You believe that their success is far outside the realm of normal probability that they are cheating somehow, maybe by bribing the executives of other teams. I joined Talksox because even though I'm a Yankee fan, I though collectively, you guys as a group were about as sharp as baseball fans as I've ever met. Although you guys are Red Sox fans, I don't believe that your fandom would exceed your logic. I hope I'm not mistaken. Do you guys really believe the Yankees as an organization cheated, and got away with it if they did? I'm dying to see how this one turns out.

I gotta back ORS here. Theo did an amazing job getting ANYTHING for Manny. Ramirez had put your FO in a terrible spot. The fact that he got Bay is a miracle in and of itself. I am not kidding when I say if he didn't find a taker, he probably would have been resorted to put him on waivers. He was destroying the morale of your team, and no way you go anywhere this season with him. Consider yourselves lucky.

You have to question this one. I'm not questioning the math you've done, just the logic of the outcome. A contending team making a salary dump pickup would invariably get at least one win a much greater percentage of the time. This is probably due to a high statistical variance of using just one season. Case in point. Go take a look at 2000, when the Yankees picked up Justice. Check out the average wins that year. I'm not saying that that deal was a salary dump, but it would kill your average wins per deal in 2001. Too much statistical variance. Back to the point. 29% is more than likely a) an aberration subjective selection on your part. By this I mean how is it you determine which deals are dumps and aren't? Majority are clear-cut, but some would be difficult to determine. Statistical analysis with way too many variables that are not accounted for, rendering the analysis invalid. Think about this one: Abreu was nothing more than a salary dump for the Phillies. With his option coming up, the Phillies wanted him off the team and to shed his salary. The Yankees agreed to the following in trading for Abreu [taken from Cot's Baseball Contract]: Yankees to pay salary remaining on Abreu's contract (about $4.4M for 2006, $15M for 2007 and $16M salary or $2M buyout for 2008) With this alone, you would presume the Yankees would HAVE to get at least a few wins for a minimum of $21 million, don't you think? Molina was expendable to the Angels due to the return of Mike Napoli, the emergence of Mathis, and the fact that he was causing a distraction that wasn't worth his .224 BA. The Angels looked at it as addition by subtraction, and had evaluated Kennard higher than he turned out. Also, the Angels were not in a fire sale mode, as that team made the playoffs. Simply a team that found a taker in a .224 hitting catcher with no power but great defensive skills. Chacon was nothing more than lightning in a bottle. No one in his right mind say that one coming. However, the Rockies were clearing out Chacon due to the emergence of Zach Day, and got some mid level prospects for Chacon, who was their 5th starter. They found an opportunity to trade Chacon, get rid of his salary, and get some players for him. Check the link. http://colorado.rockies.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20050728&content_id=1148669&vkey=news_col&fext=.jsp&c_id=col Note: Chacon was 1-7 at the time of the trade. With the Yankees lineup, and with him pitching mediocre, he was expected to net at least 1 win. However, to get back to you "statistics", it was pretty much a given that Abreu would net them at least one win, as well as Molina, and Chacon's deal. You actually believe that considering the deals, 18.4% is an accurate estimate? I would have said that at worst, it would be 50% for those three deals, by my estimate, 99% for Abreu, and 75% for Chacon and Molina. Are you saying that all deadline deals are the same? That the Sabathia or Teixeira deal will net the same return as say..the Griffey deal or the Hawkins deal? Hawkins will probably net the Astros a win [at least I got the team right this time] while the player the Yankees got won't ever see the majors. Does that count against Cashman, or does it factor in that he was DFA'd and had approximately 1 million left on his contract for the year. Cut to the end, your hypothesis, because the rest of the logic is just as flawed. I will say this. You do a lot of research, but you don't think worth a lick. What is your point to this? It's obvious you've backed off on the whole cheating part, otherwise you would have given us here some proof. Basically, you have shown all of the following, in varying degrees that are open for debate. a) Cashman has been very lucky Cashman has been very smart c) Cashman has had a mix of luck and intelligence considering his deadline deals. d) The players he acquired have for the most part over-performed Is this your point? Also, don't you think that using only one season, and a season that is four years removed from the deals in question, has such a high degree of statistical variance, that it would be far outside the accepted norms, therefore rendering the analysis inconsequential [i.e. void as construed]? Your analysis, which does not take into effect salary [a more accurate representation would be take the amount of money dumped and divide that by the wins. You'll see results that would surprise you, I'd think], and each team's motive [as shown with the Rockies excited about Day and the delegation of Molina to 3rd string on the Angels]. Or...are you alleging that the Phillies and Angels conspired with the league office to help the Yankees in some underhanded dealing? Considering the Phillies actually rebounded and were eliminated on the last or second to last day of the season, and the Angels went to the playoffs as well, is this what you're still driving at, JHB? Please...what is your point to this? Your analysis is flawed, and I'm not sure of your point. As to the rules of etiquette, it's obvious you're demeaning yourself more than I can, so please let us all know what your point to this flawed analysis is all about? I await your response.

This is one of the worst and weirdest games I've seen this year.

Pin this loss on Girardi. Why Mo wasn't in the game, I'll never understand. Just gotta hope the Rays lose. Mo can get a four out save. No big deal. Terrible non-move on Girardi's part.

Was that a knock on Jacko?

NADY NADY NADY!!!

The Angels are the best team in baseball. Don't think there's much doubt at this point. 6-1 against Yanks/Sox this week. Damn.

Pavano will rescue the Yankees, going 5-0 in five starts in September, and start game 1 of the ALDS. You wait and see.

Well, what makes me think that it was is that Manny signed with Boras AFTER the deal with Boston, so if the team picked up his options, he wouldn't get a penny of that action.

How many of you think that this was all Boras?

I was mistaken, I mean Astros. I know the Twins were looking at him, so that's what I meant when I said Twins. My mistake. Wow...see how easy that was JHB? Admit you made a mistake, and move on. Try it on for size. You see, when you're wrong, people will give you more credit for admitting you were wrong than trying to prove you were right. THIS JUST IN....BREAKING NEWS. ACCORDING TO JOHN HEYMAN, JAYSON STARK, & KEN ROSENTHAL, THE DODGERS ARE GUILTY OF CHEATING: Read about it here: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/jon_heyman/08/01/winners.losers/index.html http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=stark_jayson&id=3513865 http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/8401438/Take-your-pick:-Manny-deal-produced-winners-all-around?CMP=OTC-K9B140813162&ATT=49 Three sources...and two of them actually VALIDATE what JHB says. I stand corrected...TWICE IN THE SAME POST!!!! THE YANKEES ALSO CHEATED! I'm so sorry JHB...I take back everything I said...by your standards, the Yankees DID cheat...my mistake. By winning a trade...you cheated. How silly of me. My bad. P.S. Still waiting on your proof. I have a feeling that the Red Sox will catch up in championships before I get it.

Welcome. Sounds like a young kid.

Great, so he did his job. Thanks. Next.

Nope. Sorry. Looking for an allegation. If you consider a good trade cheating, then you should stop watching baseball and start watching the Discovery Channel, since you are completely incapable of understanding that in an avenue where competition is involved, such as in sports, there is a loser and a winner. This basic fundamental aspect escapes you, your binomial theorem, and any level of statistical computation. In other words, in this particular case, you're an idiot. Thank you again for showing Cashman to making good deadline deals. Once again, because I'm hoping that it will get through to you....all your analysis has done is show that Cashman makes good deals at the deadline. Thanks for wasting all of our time with your conspiracy theory based on an allegation that you have shown has no basis, merit, or proof. Thank you for actually arguing against your position with your research. Why can't you just admit you have ZERO proof of your allegations, and had a brain fart and f***ed up? By any chance, was the captain of the Titanic related to you? You seem to share the same genes.

Had to keep going since you had no proof, and since we got past that, was now debating the point you brought up to keep from having to put up or shut up. I was thinking Twins since he was rumored to go there. It happens. I got the player they traded for right, lol. Question: Motive for the teams involved? Even though the deal didn't go down, the Washburn deal that was rumored, a pure salary dump...if the deal had gone through, it would have netted zero wins for the Mariners, and probably a few for the Yankees. To look at just one aspect of a deal without the total picture renders the logic flawed, and mainly useless. Think about this for a second about the Washburn deal that didn't happen, and follow this logic. The Yankees were willing to deal for Washburn as only a salary dump, i.e., a non-prospect. They were willing include a prospect, even a good one, if the Mariners were to take back Igawa. Think about it. The Yankees were willing to include two extra players in the deal. As far as talent goes, the prospect and Igawa included are unquestionably better than the non-prospect. The Mariners balked at taking Igawa and his contract. One thing both you and ORS don't seem to realize that is extremely obvious is that money is playing a huge factor in these deadline deals, in fact, one could argue that it is the biggest factor in these deadline deals. By far, the largest deal wins-wise was the largest salary dump. Take into effect the motive for the deal by the team in question, and it's much closer than you think.

Ok. Can't be man enough to admit when you backed the wrong horse. Figured as much. Since JHB's allegations ended up going down the drain, the point he now raises is also very weak. You're looking at the deals in a fishbowl. You refuse to open up your logic to include motive. Here's a simple one. To get out of the contract. Lawton and Fasano were useless to their team. Traded away for a bar of soap. That's it. Salary dumps, prospects, etc., these things will lead to a skewing of your analysis. Look at Latroy Hawkins this year. We DFA'd him, but found a taker in the Twins. So we took a player that may not even make AAA in his career, just to get out of the 1 million+ left on his deal. If he ends up pitching well for the Twins the rest of the way, it's still a good move for the Yankees.

Still waiting for proof JHB. Where is the proof that the Yankees cheated? By your logic, any team that wins significantly more than it loses is a cheater. That makes Beane a cheater, Schuerholz a cheater, etc. WHERE IS YOUR PROOF? I read all the posts since I asked you for proof, all you've really done, with all of your "statistical analysis" has done nothing but prove Cashman is a good GM when making deadline deals. Wow.... I could have told you that and saved you HOURS of research. See, I don't bother researching what I already know. I am interested in what I don't know. So to give you YET ANOTHER CHANCE. I'll humor you for a sec. I DON'T KNOW IF CASHMAN CHEATED [i do know there is zero evidence of misconduct, but small minds need help]. Go run around and do your AMAZING research and find me PROOF of misconduct. Even allegations of misconduct with Cashman in ANY of his trades. Something stronger than "anonymous" sources. Guys...my fellow Yankee fans....don't get drawn into the argument of wins or lack thereof, or the logic of the deals. JHB made an allegation of cheating. He's drawing you into an argument that by showing how good Cashman's deadline deals are as of late, he's cheating. Stop arguing with him. Agree with him that they are GOOD deadline deals. Deals he wish HIS GM would do, instead of trade for Gagne and trade away Manny. LET HIM SHOW US PROOF OF YANKEE MISCONDUCT IN DEADLINE DEALS. Let's expand it. Show us misconduct in ANY TRADES CASHMAN HAS MADE IN HIS CAREER. I love how you, JHB, are attempting to paint me in a light that I discount your research and make this claim without supporting evidence. It is you that has no evidence whatsoever and has made this allegation, and all the evidence that you have brought to this thread shows what I've been saying, that he's a good deadline GM. I must say, your research has done one thing. Proved my point better than I did. Thanks. If the next post you have doesn't have proof, I'll take that as you don't have one. Not guessing. Not hypothesising. Proof. Unless you don't have it... Game. Set. Match. P.S. ORS...you have been knocked around a bit defending this guy. I held you in higher analytical regard. Oh well. Let me know when you get back up around the top again. Even me, in my most trolling mood, would never have made such a ludicrous allegation.

Actually, I talk to the wall. Makes more sense than you do. Still. No....proof....whatsoever. I'm still waiting. I love how you take into effect deadline deals, but not the rest of his deals. Brilliant. About as brilliant as running Manny out of town. I'm still waiting for your proof. I guess I'll be waiting A LONG TIME. Once again. Stay on the topic, or admit you were in error. Give me some proof the Yankees cheated in their Nady/Marte deal. Although I don't agree they won 11 straight deadline deals, it's splitting hairs. Chacon was a loss, Fasano was inconsequential, and Abreu was a salary dump [therefore in my opinion, not a valid deal to include]. Cashman makes good trades. He has a s***** record for free agent pitcher signings. Your point is? Theo is better in the off-season than Cash, Cash is generally better during the season. No statistical proof here, just a gut feeling, and if I'm wrong, so be it, I'm not hanging out my head on this one. However, I'm still sticking to my guns, even with every attempt by you to change gears, that the Yankees did not cheat in the Marte/Nady deal, and...I'll go as far as saying that they did not cheat in any of the 11 deals you listed. Now...for the umpteenth time...where is your proof? Anything more concrete than "anonymous GMs grumbling" after the fact?