Jayhawk Bill

Hey, I was watching the Twins game and I didn't find LaTroy Hawkins. What's his new uniform number? *** Mod team: if you're serious about your new standards, take action. If you're not, hey, I'm cool with spewing profanity in the MLB forums.

But Crosby could not have played twice each game, and he was already playing about 80% of the games. How could the player that the Yankees gave up in a trade have no bearing on evaluating that trade?

Yeah. The loss of Berg ruined the Yankees' future. To the contrary, you hadn't yet suggested the cloning of Bubba Crosby until your last post. Continue if you choose.

I think that you're missing the point. From the past two years' performance...or three years'...or five years'...Lawton would've been starting. At no point in his playing history did Berg deserve a chance to start in MLB, nor did he ever appear to be on track to approach an MLB career.

Lawton's 2005 PA with the Pirates: 374 Lawton's 2005 PA with the Cubs: 78 You seriously posit that the 374 PA were a fluke and that the 78 PA represent the true talent level? Especially when the batting average differed by only 29 points? Especially when the 374 PA better reflected his previous season's work? I request an answer, y228. If you're serious, I've got more to post.

The Yankees received a player who generated seven walks, four singles, two home runs, two hit by pitches, and 31 putouts. Those were all positive effects. It matters who else might have come up from AAA to take those plate appearances and outfield innings. Other AAA outfielders might've been worse. Heck, if it had been me, the Yankees would have lost all of those hits and putouts. (Of course, for the Yankees I wouldn't've been trying .) But trades are made in the context of talent availability. If Lawton was playing, there's a presumption, barring further discussion, that he was the best that they had. Who else might've been had in a trade might not matter...again, there's a presumption that this was the best trade possible.

Who would have been better than Lawton?

Is this even the same team that we saw the last week of July? There's been a change. In my mind, that change came not with the trade, but with Jason Bay's arrival interviews, and with his making at least two catches in left field last night that Manny would never have made in any of his years with Boston. Others could quibble regarding the moment. Few would quibble that there was a quantum difference between Wednesday and Friday. I'm looking forward to tonight's game.

If Hawkins plays for Houston and Matt Cusick never plays for the Yankees or for any other team before his free agent eligibility, the Astros, not the Yankees, win. Does that make sense? :dunno: I'm investigating exactly how readily available such players are. My observation has been that they cost roughly a AA/AAA player who's marginal for inclusion on the 40-man roster, and such players usually get MLB playing time. Although I continue to build a database, as I type fewer than 11% of the trades I've examined involve getting an MLB player for prospects who never reach MLB. The Yankees had three such trades among the eight cited, and a fourth, the Abreu trade, was almost that lopsided. That strikes me as odd. Are you suggesting that Cashman's advantage is that he is competent and that the majority of MLB GMs are morons? :dunno: Seriously, if that were the case, Boston's record for the past three years wouldn't've been a near-constant record of futility. Theo Epstein and his team use stats more sophisticated than those commercially available, as do the Guardians and, probably, several other teams. You may have found a contributing factor, y228, but I really don't think that it's the whole story.

Correction: since you were refusing to consider proof that involved use of binomial theorem and a high school level of statistics... What you think in this case bears little resemblance to reality. To the contrary, we DO realize that. I also know how to account for it: once all is done, if anybody were to cross-check, one could check the amount of money involved versus marginal payroll per marginal win figures for the relevant years. For the Yankees in 2006, that was $3,832,791, so a dozen-odd wins would be roughly offset by $46 million in expenditures in 2006. As Yankees salaries increased and their wins decreased, that figure rose. But let's check Abreu in 2006, since you're so adamant on that one...he was worth 3.4 wins to the Yankees, and he earned $4.4 million that autumn, so the case you keep citing was still a 2.2 win advantage for the Yankees in 2006, salary considered. The dollars appear not to affect the result substantively: remember, EVERY contending team seems to absorb a lot of salary at the deadline. The issue has been considered; it appears not to be as relevant as you might believe. Feel free to do the math year-by-year on every trade yourself if you choose to keep complaining.

Now exactly why is Mike Lowell taking opportunity of this sound bite to defend Barry Bonds? :dunno: Data point...

Cheez, I thought that you'd given your word to cease posting in this thread. But that's OK--I didn't have any reason to believe you then, just as I still don't now. OK, I posted batting averages earlier today for Lawton and Fasano to demonstrate that the allegation that they were traded away as worthless was bogus. Let's look deeper: Matt Lawton had been worth 4.6 wins (WARP1) to his teams in 2005 when he was traded to the Yankees. He was hitting .244 in his short stint with the Cubs, but the team fell out of contention in July. Lawton was a significant trading chip--giving him away for Berg, a 21-year-old pitcher who'd posted a combined 4.32 ERA in Rookie League and low A was absurd. Berg posted progressively worse ERAs between A+ and AA ball, he failed at AAA, and his career was over--and that could reasonably have been expected. One doesn't acquire MLB outfielders worth over about a win a month to their teams for low-A pitchers struggling to stay at league average ERA. Sal Fasano was a backup catcher for the Phillies, not a starting corner outfielder like Lawton. Despite little playing time, he was worth half a win to the Phillies in 2006. With Lieberthal coming back from the DL and 33-year-old rookie Chris Conte having the season of his career, Fasano was expendable, but certainly far from worthless. Giving him away for Hector Made, a 21-year-old middle infielder who hadn't moved beyond A+ level ball in four minor league seasons and who was still posting a .312 OBP with neither power nor speed and who had been moved away from shortstop because he couldn't handle the position, was foolish. Players who can catch reasonably well--as Fasano could--usually rate prospects at AA or AAA, certainly not "sure thing" prospects but often guys with a chance to make it if they can perform well in a September callup. Hector Made was already a failed prospect--the trade was a giveaway. In closing, Gom, your logic appears to be that, if a player is available, the Yankees should get that player for nothing. The purpose of this exercise is to investigate whether or not that's true: it appears that other contending teams have to surrender more future value to acquire players than the Yankees do. I can show that Fasano and Lawton could reasonably have been expected to have trade value. I can't make you understand, if you don't see it already, that players with trade value can be used, by definition, to acquire other players with actual MLB potential. Oh, one more thing: LaTroy Hawkins was traded to the Astros, not the Twins, Gom. http://bleacherreport.com/articles/42947-new-york-yankees-make-two-minor-moves For a poster like you who feels authoritative enough to deign other posters as idiots, saying that Hawkins went to the Twins is a pretty stupid thing to post.

Gotta say, if he left because of his fianc?e, there's nothing wrong with that. Eventually they'll be married and she'll be happy to get rid of him for the entire duration of a game while she does other things, but during the engagement period, flexibility is critical.

Yes, but in the cases of Fasano and Lawton, the Yankees literally gave away nothing--nobody they gave up reached MLB. Getting games from guys you receive in trade for minor league players who never, ever reach MLB--not even for a cup of coffee--is a win. The metrics WARP and VORP evaluate players with respect to an arbitrary replacement-player threshold. That's actually a good metric for most purposes, but it's a mistake to consider a minor league player who never reached MLB to be worth zero WARP. Players who don't reach MLB aren't replacement-level. Yeah, Fasano and Lawton weren't great, although Fasano was misused playing partial games--his OPS dropped 128 points over his career when he was used as a sub, and it dropped a whopping 392 points in 2006 when he was used as a sub. In either case, though, the Yankees played fine with either player in the games, and that's better than nothing...or, more accurately, better than the possibility of using a player who clearly DIDN'T belong in MLB at their positions. The players traded away didn't belong in MLB at all. That's why they never did play in MLB. And that's why these trades were wins for the Yankees. Regarding Redding, the Yankees acquired--and later released without compensation--a valuable pitcher. Just because they threw away the talent because they thought that they could use their 40-man roster slots better doesn't mean that they lost the trade--it was a plus-four-win deadline trade. Neither Jacko nor CrespoBlows has analyzed anything, they're merely looking at anecdotal evidence. Furthermore, a trade is a transaction...Sal Fasano may not be worth much, but when the price of acquisition is zero--the loss of a worthless prospect--the transaction can still be a win. The challenge with that is the evaluation of young players expected to improve. Over several trades, "luck" of player development averages out. If you've got a good metric that I could use to reflect MiLB player values across history at various snapshot moments, let me know--barring that, actual developed value over obligated service period seems to work best. But since I've got their screens open, Sal Fasano was batting .243 when the Yankees got him, and Matt Lawton was batting .268 when he was acquired. It's one thing to throw darts blindfolded and to hit the dartboard occasionally. It's another to hit the dartboard every time and to score 10 or more points half of the time. Except that you're making an implicit assumption that the norm in a deadline trade is that you get a really good player half of the time. I'm slowly trying to grind through deadline trades from over six years ago* to see how often a team earns more than a win either short-term or long-term. It's rare: as I'd expected, most deadline trades seem to involve contending teams acquiring players who offer little long-term gain. I'm surprised, though, at how little short-term gain for contenders is involved--the mean thus far is less than a quarter win, and the median is thus far zero--but I've got to get a bigger sample size. Each trade has to be researched for several factors, including contract length, so it's slow going. But right now, my belief is that the frequency of clear wins for the Yankees is adequate to make a case of statistical significance. Still, though, anybody's not counting as a win the acquisition of an MLB player for a kid who never reaches MLB is disingenuous. The only trade of the past eleven that I can see as potentially being a Yankees "loss" is trading away Chacon--but he was about to be released because of his 7.00 ERA and his not being eligible for MiLB assignment. In context, it, too, is a win.

EqGAR, EqAAR, EqHAR, and EqOAR all evaluate aspects of baserunning other than stealing bases.

Crap!

Yes.

My best friend and I in junior high school? :dunno:

Gom, I didn't know that Jacko had shared his password with you. Nice, productive comments. Seriously, Jacko, I defined reasonable criteria--the trades all worked in the Yankees favor. You wanted anecdotal discussion, and I responded. You then resort to insults. See, if you'd left out the insults, it might've ended up being productive, but as it is you sound like a...ummm...Yankees fan. And, for what it's worth, bitching about your acquisition of Chacon in 2005 when he started with a sub 3.00 ERA for two months--or bitching about the acquisition of useful talent for minor leaguers who never played a single game in MLB--is disingenuous.

OK, I've got your opinions. Where is your analysis? Bummer. Cheated. *** OK, answering your points: The Angels were ready to DFA (Molina), and decided to take something rather than nothing for him. This was a non-move for anaheim and Cashman used it to his advantage. Jose Molina had played in 11 of the previous 14 games, and he had played in 40 of his team's 96 games before being traded. They got Molina for Jeff Kennard, who has never played in MLB and likely never will, given that he's 27 and he's posting a 7.38 ERA in relief at AAA this season. This was a giveaway of talent: Molina was used often by Anaheim, and he was a valuable trading chip. He traded Proctor because Torre would use him and only him in tight spots. Cashman wanted to use the kids in the pen while Torre wouldnt. So, Cashman took away Torre's binky and sold high on Proctor. Turns out, Proctor sucked and Betemit once again doesnt get the ABs he needs to become a solid regular. This trade is a wash. OK, Proctor now sucks--but Betemit remains under Yankees control, and he's steadily accruing value and providing runs. This is the trade that's not yet done, and Betemit's future value offsets Proctor's ability to coach Little League next year. You are honestly calling this a win for someone? Sal Fasano, the guy whose moustache had more pop than his bat? Please. Everyone has a shot at players like this for nothing. This is what we got. Sal Fasano caught 28 games in two months for the AL East-winning Yankees. In games where he played the whole game, the Yankees had an .857 winning percentage and the opponents scored fewer than three runs per game. I'd like a catcher who could call games like that for nothing... This was a straight salary dump AND Abreu was in the midst of his worst career season. The Yankees took the chance that he'd be worth 23 million over a yr and 2 months. That he was. The Sox had the same chance but werent willing to eat the entire salary. They could have had him and you wouldnt be able to bitch anymore. ********. As previously linked, the Red Sox thought that they had a deal for Lidle and that they were on track for Abreu when both players suddenly went to the Yankees. Check the rest of the thread. Wilson was without a job and Chacon was on the yankees' wits end. Turns out, Chacon was more useful than Wilson. Without a job? Wilson was .267/.339/.478 in 85 out of 103 games for the Pirates. Shawn Chacon had a 7.00 ERA in 17 games. Wilson went on to play 40 games for the Yankees in two months at roughly replacement level. Chacon was 2-3, 5.48 for Pittsburgh, with a 6.26 RA...given the NL-AL difference and the unearned runs, he continued to struggle in Pittsburgh. The next year, Chacon recovered...but that was, frankly, unanticipated, and the Pirates (and later the Astros) were as frustrated with Chacon as the Yankees had been. WHAT A WIN!!! May lasted a couple games and Redding lasted one. The sox torched him, he was DFAd and the rest is history. Redding was released because somebody was angry after one game. He went on to be a productive pitcher. Good trade--stupid everyday management. Chacon was one yr removed from a 7+ ERA season and was dealt to the yankees when his WHIP was nearly 1.6. Ramirez turned out to be a solid MR and Sierra reverted to norm. This was a short term win, but I'd love to have a near lights out MR right now. Without Chacon, Yankees don't reach the ALDS in 2005. Period. 7-3, 2.85 ERA in the AL East as a starter. Yeah, Jacko, that's a win. You really calling this one a giveaway? Lawton was acquired a month earlier by the Cubs where he hit like s***. The Yankees got him for free from a team that wasnt going to contend (since he was at the end of his contract and he proved useless). And again, he proved he was useless. I'm calling this one a win...Lawton played in MLB. Berg, who was traded away, never did. BTW, Yankees were 10-4 in games Lawton started, and a third of his hits for New York were home runs. Take a look at EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THESE MOVES. What do they all have in common? They were about to be dumped, they were coming off poor yrs, they all had monetary concerns, etc. Disproven.

I eagerly await your analysis.