Jayhawk Bill

I really don't disrespect Brian Cashman at all--I think that he'll be remembered someday as an excellent GM. I merely consider Theo Epstein better than that.

Any one who thinks Cashman is an exellent GM is an idiot and knows nothing about baseball.

Hmmm...rather than merely disagreeing with the point, Gom goes for the full-bore personal insult.

OK...

I consider Cashman an excellent GM. I consider Theo to be better. I consider anybody who spells the word "excellent" without using the letter "c" to be an idiot who knows nothing about information communicated through the English language, including information regarding the business of Major League Baseball.

Boy, this is really constructive. I laid low, Gom, you ********. You cast the first insult. Flame war back on.

I'd trade either of them for a 14 year old Vietnamese hooker' date=' though. Female, preferably.[/quote']

 

As an aside, does your employer know that you publicly proclaim your desire for 14-year-old hookers here on Talksox?

It would also be worth mentioning (even though I'm sure everyone is aware) that the Yankees have made the playoffs every year in which Cashman was the general manager' date=' although this year could be different.[/quote']

 

Yes, but he inherited a team that made the ALDS in 1997 when he took over in 1998, a team just one year removed from a 1996 World Championship. Theo inherited a team that hadn't made the ALDS three years running and that hadn't won a World Series for a few years longer.

 

Let's see how the two have done from 2003-2008:

 

[table]Year | Yankees Payroll | Red Sox Payroll | Marginal Payroll | Yankees Wins | Red Sox Wins | Marginal Wins | MP/MW

2008 | $209,081,577 | $133,390,035 | $75,691,542 | 70 | 75 | -5 | N/A

2007 | $189,639,045 | $143,026,214 | $46,612,831 | 94 | 96 | -2 | N/A

2006 | $194,663,079 | $120,099,824 | $74,563,255 | 97 | 86 | 11 | $6,778,477.73

2005 | $208,306,817 | $123,505,125 | $84,801,692 | 95 | 95 | 0 | N/A

2004 | $184,193,950 | $127,298,500 | $56,895,450 | 101 | 98 | 3 | $18,965,150.00

2003 | $152,749,814 | $99,946,500 | $52,803,314 | 101 | 95 | 6 | $8,800,552.33 [/table]

 

In three out of six years, the Yankees have won more games than the Red Sox. Here's how much more Opening Day payroll they had for each extra win, each of those three years:

 

[table]Year | MP/MW

2003 | $8,800,552.33

2004 | $18,965,150.00

2006 | $6,778,477.73 [/table]

 

Edit: For a benchmark, total MLB payroll divided by total MLB wins was $1,115,750.86 in 2007.

 

Yes, the Yankees were better three of six years, but it took them an extraordinary amount of money for each extra win. The other three years, the Yankees spent between $46,612,831 and $84,801,692 more than the Red Sox and they failed to win a single extra game, despite sharing an AL East schedule.

 

I really don't disrespect Brian Cashman at all--I think that he'll be remembered someday as an excellent GM. I merely consider Theo Epstein better than that.

 

 

Payroll figures from Cot's Contracts.

Theo Epstein has never had the highest-paid team in his division, and he's not yet failed to reach the postseason in any year where he was the GM through the preceding winter.

Brian Cashman has had an extraordinary advantage in payroll and has taken best advantage of it. He also seems to have been exceptionally lucky in deadline trades since 2005, unless there's an external factor working beyond simply payroll.

Neither is a bad GM, but Theo has been getting way more wins per payroll dollar year-for-year than Cashman, and, again, Theo has made the ALDS each year except when they screwed up his team while he was on hiatus.

Millwood is signed through 2010 at 11 mil a yr. And, over the past 2 yrs, his WHIP is 1.65, which is abysmal. The sox likely could have him for free if they eat his contract.

You must mean, "The Yankees could have him for free if they eat his contract." For Boston, the price would, of course, be higher.

You were talking to all Yankee fans, not just Gom. Those were your words. I was trying to make a point. I have never insulted you. I did not deserve to be insulted, and I was not supporting Gom.

 

You're treating Gom and I as if we're the same person. We aren't. Not only aren't we the same person but I never even took Gom's side. Before you left I was debating this issue on my own, not backing any other posters. If you want to insult me for no reason, be my guest, I just still don't understand at all where that came from.

Meh, I've apologized to you elsewhere.

With the disgrace comment, you said it to all Yankee fans, not just Gom. Because of that I figured you were talking about their favorite team cheating. Whatever, not that big a deal.

 

As for the masturbation comment, I don't understand that at all. First off, this is the Yankee game thread, not the thread where you and Gom were fighting. I've shown nothing but respect to you and every other poster on this board. And please show me where I supported Gom in the flame war...

 

I don't have thin skin, and the insult itself does not bother me, I just don't understand at all where that came from. This thread is not filled with pages of you and Gom fighting. I didn't interrupt any flame war between you to. I just did not see why you insulted me, especially with something that has absolutely nothing to do with me.

Pardon, yankees228, but you entered a thread where Gom and I were flaming and you quoted me in my response to Gom and took issue with the words. You get what you deserve when you do that.

That is why I insulted you. You deserved it: you took exception to my response to Gom, a poster who is currently moving to homophobic insults in his latest attempt to overcome the shortcomings of his logic.

Either he's drunk' date=' or he's turning the J into a G, i.e. GayHawkBill. Hilarious.[/quote']

 

Could be, in which case my previous comment about bigoted homophobic comments applies, as well as the question of why a mod team would permit such prejudicial posting.

 

:dunno:

Another example of GHB not proving a damn thing. You've lost. You lost this argument a long time ago.

 

There will be other one's, and I'm sure you'll get the best of me eventually. Just not today, and not on this one. Take your loss as graciously as you can, say that maybe you were wrong, in the heat of the moment, and frustrated at your Sox after seeing us get Nady/Marte and you lost Manny.

 

Believe it or not, I'd be gracious in winning this round. Try it dude. You're really beating a dead horse.

Gom, you're so drunk that you can't even spell "JHB" right.

There is no loss: there is only research demonstrating that it's over 99% unlikely that the 2005-2007 trades would've happened without an external factor.

http://www.talksox.com/forum/damn-yankees/10928-yanks-acquire-nady-marte-bucs-4-prospects-8.html

Post # 120

 

As for the relevance, there is more talk of the Yankees playing outside the rules in this thread, so I figured I would address all of the posters here who are making these claims.

 

And what's with the masturbation comment?

First, the entire post you reference regarding Yankees fans living with the disgrace:

It's ok. If the Yankees win, it's a conspiracy. If the Sox win, it's overcoming such amazingly high tremendously stupendously insurmountable odds. Yeah I get it. It never ceases to amaze me how you [primarily JHB and to a lesser extent, ORS] can make such nice posts and top it off with the most illogical assumptions.

 

I think what the Mets gave up for Santana was garbage. Since it wasn't the Yankees, it was ok. If it was the Yankees who offered the same package, it would be collusion, or MLB sanctioned tampering, or whatever.

 

Deal with it. Was it collusion/tampering/etc that allowed you guys to let Damon go and sign Crisp? If it was another team, it would be collusion.

 

Go ahead...keep trying.

 

Like I said, every team always seems shocked when the deal goes to the OTHER team. The Yankees FO tried to do it when the Mets got Santana. It's a PR move designed to make the team that got the deal seem like they got a "steal" that their team didn't get a chance at.

 

********. I don't buy it when "other" GMs say it, as well as ours. The Yankees were heavily involved in Sabathia? ********. If they were, they would have gotten the deal done. Sometimes it just doesn't work out for you.

 

I waited a day, and I waited until I was sure you'd been online at Talksox. You're not planning to support your insult with explicit fact, Gom.

 

See, Gom, the issue is that you cannot dispute what I'm writing. You're used to countering others' opinions with your bluster and bias, and on most sports forums it works. It may be rude to act that way when you're a guest at another team's site, but it's usually adequate to the level of discourse.

 

This is different. I cite facts. You're failing to answer those facts.

 

Yes, the insinuation is extraordinary--but extraordinary does not begin to mean "impossible" in an era where NBA referees are sentenced to prison for selling their impartiality. Furthermore, trades are business decisions, not directly part of the game, and even the MLBPA has accused MLB of collusion in its business decisions. Once upon a time, in the days of Babe Ruth, it was perfectly acceptable to sell away star players if it fattened the owners' pockets. The St Louis Browns stayed profitable by doing just that. Now there are alleged protections against such sales, but there are no public audits of the books of the privately-held teams or their owners that would reveal a pattern of monetary transfers...bribes...that parallelled these repeated absurdities labeled as trades.

 

You cannot prove your point. I can quote journalists' and GMs' astonishment at many of the trades, and I can point out a pattern of unusually favorable results for the Yankees. The jury of the readership looks at these facts brought together, and it realizes that this last trade is not a single mistake but rather part of a pattern, and they come to understand that we cannot be getting the full story on why these trades happen.

 

You respond with unsupported allegations of illogical posting.

 

Here's the truth: your posts are illogical. Your posts are unresearched. Your posts are unnecessarily rude. And here the truth behind it all: your team, their owners, and their fans are spoiled by your resources and your past successes earned on a playing field far from level.

 

Hank Steinbrenner, this month:

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob Nightengale

"There's a lot of excitement around here from the Rays fans, but almost to a point of arrogance," he says. "They better be careful. They'll learn this (expletive) can change real quick."

 

The Yankees have been subsidizing the Rays and other teams with their revenue-sharing and luxury-tax payments, Steinbrenner says, so they should be thanking the Yankees.

 

"People in baseball know it, whether they want to admit it or not," Steinbrenner says. "It helps everyone when the Yankees are good. The Red Sox, whether they're good or not, doesn't necessarily matter, nationally. … Let's face it: The Yankees are baseball history. You're talking about 26 championships."

 

Hank Steinbrenner alleging arrogance on the part of Rays fans...is there a better example of irony?

 

But consider the moral implications of this quoted sentence: "It helps everyone when the Yankees are good." If Steinbrenner truly believes that--and one is challenged to conceive of why he would utter such arrogant words on record were he not to believe them in his soul--then he can be at this very moment excusing himself for whatever else it took besides prospects to acquire Marte and Nady. Were there any transfer of wealth unreported to MLB and the public, it was only for the good of MLB...not just the good of his franchise, the good of all of MLB.

 

At least in his own mind.

 

***

 

The Marte-Nady trade stinks, Gom. Any objective party, knowing all of the facts, comes to that conclusion despite the absence of the Pirates' owners explaining for ESPN and SI, on the record, why they sold two of their best players in a sale thinly disguised as a trade.

 

Live with the disgrace, Yankees fan.

The disgrace is that Gom confronted fact with opinion. I do research; he does insults. That's the disgrace. He's called my sample size too small, and he still doesn't know what it is--although I've been kind enough to state that the last two days of the month that I sampled exceeded what he cited--twice--as the complete sample size.

Regarding "What's with the masturbation comment?" you should realize that you've entered a zone of Talksox not for the thin-skinned. For the record, I was abused for about two weeks for being too thin-skinned to deal with crap like what thrown around in here. I regard that as inappropriate: I was trying to follow the posted rules. The posted rules seem not to apply. Live with it.

If you can't, I advise you to avoid areas where Gom and I are going at it. Frankly, if you get away from here, I've got nothing against you. If you support Gom in this flame war, I'll post as I choose.

JHB made a comment way back in the Nady thread about Yankee fans living with the disgrace.

Quote me, and cite the relevance to this thread.

Or just go masturbate...it's what you seem to be doing now.

Good s*** ... right? This is why the Yankee fans hate me.

It's actually a recitation of facts. If Yankees fans hate you for the truth...well, I've gathered that sometimes that's the case. :dunno:

But upon further review you're right...

Thanks!

Seriously, I don't subscribe to YES (thank Gawd) and I haven't seen the video, thus my request. AFAIK, it wasn't a valid call...but I'd be eager to hear an impartial observer (um, not YES) point that out.

Yeah and nobody cares about your point. I wasnt trying to be funny. I'm just sick of the ******** on this site lately, the constant back and forth. I'm tired of the cheating accusations (and the responses, don't get me wrong), and when JHB made a big stink over the Mora call last night all it did was annoy me further.

 

Bill (and everyone else who had a problem with it), are you aware that this offseason the rules committee gathered and changed the rule regarding the runner's right to advance to first on a dropped 3rd strike? The rule previously had been the runner could go all the way back towards his dugout, but as long as he didn't go inside the dugout he still possessed the right to advance. The rule now is that once a runner leaves the dirt circle around home plate and touches the grass/turf/whatever, which Mora did last night, that he lost the right to advance to first. Now with you guys complaining about that, your implying that the umpires are no good for doing their job and following the rules, and somehow tryign to make it out as if the Yankees caught a break, when in fact all that happened was the Umpires followed the RULES. Speaking of rules, aren't they those things JHB gets so worked up over here on Talksox? Funny how when rules arent followed to a T on a message board he throws a fit and runs and hides for a week, but when they are followed in a Baseball game he still catches a temper tantrum. Bill, get some help. Kilo, again buddy, go elsewhere with your ********.

The rule in question is posted below. The point you make, italicized by me, was added not in 2007-2008, but rather in 2005-2006:

6.09

The batter becomes a runner when --

(a) He hits a fair ball;

( The third strike called by the umpire is not caught, providing (1) first base is unoccupied, or (2) first base is occupied with two out;

Rule 6.09( Comment: A batter who does not realize his situation on a third strike not caught, and who is not in the process of running to first base, shall be declared out once he leaves the dirt circle surrounding home plate.

© A fair ball, after having passed a fielder other than the pitcher, or after having been touched by a fielder, including the pitcher, shall touch an umpire or runner on fair territory;

(d) A fair ball passes over a fence or into the stands at a distance from home base of 250 feet or more. Such hit entitles the batter to a home run when he shall have touched all bases legally. A fair fly ball that passes out of the playing field at a point less than 250 feet from home base shall entitle the batter to advance to second base only;

(e) A fair ball, after touching the ground, bounds into the stands, or passes through, over or under a fence, or through or under a scoreboard, or through or under shrubbery, or vines on the fence, in which case the batter and the runners shall be entitled to advance two bases;

(f) Any fair ball which, either before or after touching the ground, passes through or under a fence, or through or under a scoreboard, or through any opening in the fence or scoreboard, or through or under shrubbery, or vines on the fence, or which sticks in a fence or scoreboard, in which case the batter and the runners shall be entitled to two bases;

(g) Any bounding fair ball is deflected by the fielder into the stands, or over or under a fence on fair or foul territory, in which case the batter and all runners shall be entitled to advance two bases;

(h) Any fair fly ball is deflected by the fielder into the stands, or over the fence into foul territory, in which case the batter shall be entitled to advance to second base; but if deflected into the stands or over the fence in fair territory, the batter shall be entitled to a home run. However, should such a fair fly be deflected at a point less than 250 feet from home plate, the batter shall be entitled to two bases only.

Pardon, but do you have video showing the batter to have left the dirt circle?

And as an added aside, you post, "Bill, get some help." I've not yet troubled you in my postings with Gom, but you engage in flaming--is it a Yankees thing, or is it a mental illness?

JHB, because you only seem to do this stuff when it benefits your team. You are the least objective person to ever come here. People are starting to see this now, what I've known for a while.

 

You know I believe you haven't posted them in other games? Because it probably went against the Yankees or was insignificant. Where are the numbers from Red Sox games? How come the bias in only Yankee games when they win? You seem to have a tendency to selectively choose which statistics to point out, and only to make your point, and ignoring the statistics that would discredit your results. In the other thead, I listed Ryan Church for the very reason of not wanting to "cherry pick". Your credibility here is close to zero at this point. Try to fix that, for your own sake.

 

See, if you did it for EVERY game, then you'd have a point. But if you look at the numbers, and only post them in games the Yankees win, and only when you view them as significant....no one buys what you say.

 

I want everyone to know that I kept this post very clean, with no hidden agendas or meanings. THIS WAS VERY FREAKING HARD FOR ME TO DO!!!!!

Why don't you do the research on all those other games?

Barring that, why don't you stop suggesting that I'm only doing this stuff when it benefits my team?

See, you're making a huge assumption and posting it as fact as an insult, even while you say, "I kept this post very clean, with no hidden agendas or meanings. THIS WAS VERY FREAKING HARD FOR ME TO DO!!!!" It's not clean, Gom. It's insulting.

Do your research or shut your f***ing mouth.

Every time the yankees win you do this. Ridiculous.

It's ridiculous to point out that the pattern is aggravating but not significant?

Furthermore, you say that I do this "every time the Yankees win." Find where I posted this--or anything like this--on any of their last five wins.

You can't--I didn't. I only raise these points in a minority of games.

I find it interesting how you have said they are cheating and that they are getting the calls. And the method you cite for the cheating is just hilarious.

What is a better way of determining a potential pattern of wrong calls than checking right and wrong calls?

For a smart guy, you sound like you have a lot of sour grapes. And for what? You have 2 rings since 2001, we dont

Odd that you'd bring this up...yes, we've won twice since 2004...so, why are you raising a "sour grapes" issue?

Yankees pitchers vs. Orioles pitchers tonight, Pitch f/x normalized chart:

 

Yankees bonus strikes tonight: 7

Orioles bonus strikes tonight: 2

 

Net: Yankees +5

 

Yankees cheated strikes tonight: 0

Orioles cheated strikes tonight: 3

 

Net: Yankees +3

 

Total: Yankees +8

 

In a two-run game, the calls thus far are possibly the difference in the game.

It looks as if the net dropped to +7 Yankees by game end.

Statistically significant at the 95% level? Nah. Disturbing if it's part of a pattern, such as calling out a runner who should be safe? Yeah.

Yankees pitchers vs. Orioles pitchers tonight, Pitch f/x normalized chart:

Yankees bonus strikes tonight: 7

Orioles bonus strikes tonight: 2

Net: Yankees +5

Yankees cheated strikes tonight: 0

Orioles cheated strikes tonight: 3

Net: Yankees +3

Total: Yankees +8

In a two-run game, the calls thus far are possibly the difference in the game.

Waste of a game

 

onto tomorrow, it doesnt get any easier as the Sox face the 16-9 A.J. Burnett. Dice opposes him, with his 15-2 mark... but Blue jays hitters have been making the Sox pay for allowing baserunners, uh oh for him if it continues

Dice-K has allowed a batting line of .170/.264/.255 thus far in his career pitching in Toronto. Yes, Boston struggles against the Jays, but Matsuzaka has a reasonable chance to prevail.

So, we are now about a month out from the trade, and I have to say that the Pirates have gotten a pretty damn good deal. Take a look at this....

 

Jose Tabata recommited himself after the trade. He is hitting .415 with a 1.069OPS with the same amt of homers and only 3 less EBH in a fifth the ABs.

 

Dan McCutchen has averaged 6+IP per start, has a WHIP of 1.10, has a 4/1 K/BB as well as a lower BAA in his 6 starts in the Pirates org

 

Ross Ohlendorf is averaging 6.5IP per start, has a 4/1 K/BB and a WHIP of 1.2 in 5 starts in AAA for the Pirates

 

Jeff Karstens has averaged 7IP per start in his 4 starts, has an ERA of 2.25 and has a WHIP of 1.08 for the big club.

 

If Tabata recommits himself for good, then this is a solid deal for Pittsburgh. Karstens and McCutchen profile safely to stay in the back of their rotation, Ohlie will likely end up in their pen and Tabata could be a solid OFer for yrs to come. Obviously, this deal will be evaluated in time, but the early returns look good for both teams.

One might criticize the small sample size, though.

Through yesterday, Karstens and Nady had each earned 1.7 wins since the trade--that's superstar performance for both players. Marte has been a tiny bit (0.2 wins) below replacement level, so thus far, at the MLB level, Pittsburgh is ahead.

One of the things that happens with small samples for pitchers, though, is that pitchers allow many more or fewer runs because of how hits are clumped and how balls in play are fielded. Let's look at selected stats for Karstens and Marte:

[table] Stat | Karstens | Marte

ERA | 2.25 | 10.13

DER | .784 | .619

LD% | 22.5% | 22.7%

K/G | 3.8 | 10.6

xFIP | 5.09 | 4.93 [/table]

Excepting ERA and the Defensive Efficiency of fielders behind him--and there's nothing in the line drive rate to suggest that a whopping DER difference is reasonable--it looks as if Karstens has pitched roughly as well in the NL Central as Marte has done in the AL East. Given the league differences, I'm not sure that Karstens is really doing much better...

...but the key, of course, is whether Tabata can ever be a MLB star. We'll see.

2005? Florida?

Beckett didn't get a single Cy Young vote for that season. His ERA+ was only 118; he wasn't top 10 in his league in either ERA or strikeouts. He was 21st in the NL by VORP that year--yes, that's clearly an above-average season, so I see your point, but Lester is third in the AL this year and Matsuzaka is eighth, so I was thinking of a higher standard. :dunno:

Do you think DiceK is getting by on luck?

In part--but Lester has been lucky over his entire career, and Beckett isn't nearly as good.

He hasnt allowed a hit with the bases loaded in 14 tries.

Nobody avoids the core of the strike zone like Matsuzaka. He's not afraid to walk home a crucial run, but he will not give a batter something to hit.

He also only goes 5-6 innings per start giving a good team a shot at the underbelly of the sox pen.

A shot at the Red Sox pen, yes...but underbelly?

Tonight's debacle aside, and Tito's irrational use of his relief pitchers through the first half also aside, Boston was still, remarkably, the tenth-best MLB bullpen rated by WXRL this morning. Perhaps the bullpen is less of a strength for Boston than some other areas, but it's tough to call it an "underbelly."

And, whose to say he'll actually get out of the jams when a playoff team is at the dish. I think you gotta go Beckett-Lester in that order with DiceK third.

OK, but Matsuzaka has the reputation of being, perhaps, the best clutch pitcher in the history of Japanese baseball, and Boston was 3-1 in his four postseason starts last year despite Tito's having almost blown out his throwing arm in the first half through pitcher abuse. This season Matsuzaka is, thus far, still healthy. I'll take Dice-K.

If you watched the game' date=' you could see that he was missing his spots in the zone with his FB, curve and change. His curve was flat, but his FB was also up or wild within the zone.[/quote']

 

Yes, but his fastball ALWAYS (well, without hyperbole, frequently in both 2006 and 2008) is up or wild within the zone. The biggest difference I saw on pitch-by-pitch analysis was his failure to throw a good curve.

 

We'll see how it works out. Frankly, Beckett has one good year to his credit in MLB, 2007. We may be expecting too much.

that's gotta be your shortest post ever by far

Meh. It answered the question at hand. :dunno:

Seriously, Daisuke Matsuzaka is 15-2, he's got the best ERA, he's not a kid, and he's thrived in the spotlight in Japan several times. Beckett is an MLB-average pitcher in 2008 (in fact, his only year he received a single Cy Young Award vote was 2007) and Lester is still young. I'll take Matsuzaka.

YMMV.

Alfonso Marquez is behind home plate tonight. Marquez appears to be fair with respect to both Boston and Baltimore, although Baltimore won 6-3 the last time he called a game between the two (June 2, 2008).

You know, Clay Buchholz has been the unluckiest pitcher on any contending AL team this season. (Source BP; stat "LUCK.") Yeah, he's struggled, but he's not been as bad as the W-L record would suggest: with Boston, he should be nearly a .500 pitcher as well as he's thrown.

Buchholz OPS allowed by catcher:

Varitek: .866

Cash: .618

Should be an exciting game.