The poor RISP average seemed unlucky/flukey. Runs scored suffered because of that. If (and I know, it's a huge if) Posada is the everyday catcher, this offense isn't that bad. At least good enough to win some games behind a rotation of:

CC, Wang, Burnett, Joba/Hughes, and Pettitte.

Am I missing something? Obviously Tex + CC is ideal, but wouldn't a Yankee team with that rotation and the current lineup (again, assuming posada can catch) be right up there with Boston and Tampa? Especially if Cano bounces back.

CC, Wang, Burnett, Joba/Hughes, and Pettitte.

I don't think there's any way they do CC, Burnett and Pettitte.

I think it's likely 1) CC or Burnett, 2) Wang 3) Joba 4) Lowe or Pettitte 5) Hughes 6) Kennedy/Flotsam/Jetsam

They need a bat, too. Tex is ideal (of course), but a Dunn/Burrell type hitter to split time between OF and DH would be very useful (assuming Posada can catch).

They'd then have "new guy"/Swisher/Damon/Matsui/Nady/Melky to cover 1B/RF/LF/CF/DH. That would give each of the top 5 guys ~150 starts (before injuries) with Melky picking up 60-100 starts depending on injury. I think that's a pretty good solution, as long as "new guy" can hit.

Am I missing something? Obviously Tex + CC is ideal, but wouldn't a Yankee team with that rotation and the current lineup (again, assuming posada can catch) be right up there with Boston and Tampa? Especially if Cano bounces back.

Yes, you're missing that they're losing Giambi and Abreu. Even if the numbers with RISP return to normal, they're not going to have a good offense. A-Rod is great, but who is their second-best hitter? Whoever it is, he's not what you'd want your second-best hitter to be, and the back of the order isn't strong enough to make up for that with a circular lineup.

Yes, you're missing that they're losing Giambi and Abreu.

I commented on this the other day. I had not really realized how well those guys hit until I got THT 09 in the mail.

I think the Yankees should have offered Abreu arb.

That said, I would still take Sabathia over Teixeira.

I think people are overstating the cost of losing Giambi and Abreu. Giambi added nothing on defense and was a negative in the basepath. Abreu added some value in his baserunning but was, but pretty much every measure, the worst RFer in the game. Yes, you don't find 120 OPS+ guys every day, it isn't worth but signing 35-and-older players to heavy contracts.

I think people are overstating the cost of losing Giambi and Abreu.

Well, it depends on who you ask, of course, but Giambi was 2nd on the team in SLG, had a high OBP, and Abreu played a lot and was IIRC .371/.471. NY's rpg dropped by almost a full run last year even with them.

You are right about the D and it is time part ways with Giambi. But I think not offering Abreu arb was a mistake. I seriously doubt he would have taken it, and if he had, stick him at DH 4-5 times a week, in RF once a week, and leave him alone.

After seeing Giambi and Abreu's numbers, I can see why some of the NYY fans are wound up about Teixeira.

But I think not offering Abreu arb was a mistake. I seriously doubt he would have taken it, and if he had, stick him at DH 4-5 times a week, in RF once a week, and leave him alone.

DH is already taken by Matsui. He's just as bad as Abreu in the OF.

The Yanks had no real use for Abreu. The picks would have been nice, but paying him $16M was untenable.

The money they save on Abreu and Pettitte can be used on international signings instead of draft picks/signing bonuses. I don't think it's a huge loss.

DH is already taken by Matsui.

He missed a lot of time last year, in spite of his track record of durability. And I actually liked Jaffe's idea at BP of trying to trade to get Matsui to waive the no-trade and go to SF--which Jaffe thinks NY should do even with Abreu gone. The Renteria signing indicates Sabean is trying to get to October at 85-77 and Godzilla might help with that in addition to being good PR.

The Yanks had no real use for Abreu.

He can still hit. There is almost always a use for that.

The picks would have been nice, but paying him $16M was untenable.

The money they save on Abreu and Pettitte can be used on international signings instead of draft picks/signing bonuses.

Well, again, that depends on who you ask. Some people say that; some people act like the Yankees are made of money, so money spent on Abreu would have zero effect on anything else. I suppose it only really matters what Steinsquared and Cashman think in the end. I actually argued LAST year that the Yankees should have let Abreu walk instead of reupping him in part for the same reason, and several Yankee fans here said flatly that I was wrong--that Abreu's salary would not affect the team's international budget.

I don't think it's a huge loss.

It isn't, but I don't think losing Giambi and Abreu is something to dismiss, either. And, again, I think there is almost no chance he would have accepted.

And I actually liked Jaffe's idea at BP of trying to trade to get Matsui to waive the no-trade and go to SF--which Jaffe thinks NY should do even with Abreu gone.

Well that would be another issue. I'm assuming Matsui is going nowhere. He is still a good hitter, when healthy, and much more valuable to the Yankees than Abreu b/c of the whole Japanes marketing thing.

At some point people are finally going to begin asking if Cashman really sees how the pieces fit together, right? I guess if they haven't yet you just never know when they will...

I'm primarily in line with #2. The Yanks clearly need 1 and probably 2 more bats (unless they are truly convinced that Posada can catch and Matsui is fully recovered) and a good backup C. But those extra bats don't necessarily need to be Dunn/Burrell quality. And I'd think an RH bat would be best.

In terms of position players, I still think where they most need an upgrade right now is CF but none seem available. But if they could find a good starting CF -- i.e. an average bat and good glove for the position -- that creates a lot of flexibility for the Damon/Matsui/Swisher/Nady/Posada/backup C/RH bat group with tons of platooning potential as well as injury coverage depth. It also means Melky and Gardner in the minors or traded (with Swisher/Damon providing regular backup CF duties).

It's hard to say who they'd get but you could probably fill those slots for less money than Teixeira is gonna cost.

At some point people are finally going to begin asking if Cashman really sees how the pieces fit together, right? I guess if they haven't yet you just never know when they will...

I'd say it's already started with most people, even those who were/are Cashman fans.

I think I, and other Yankees fans, like him so much because his general ideas are ours. The problem, of course, is that he's not so good at actually implementing them, IMO.

I think I, and other Yankees fans, like him so much because his general ideas are ours. The problem, of course, is that he's not so good at actually implementing them, IMO.

What is the reason to think his general ideas are like yours, though? Seems to me that the entire Brian Cashman sabermetric fan appeal is imaginary (or just wishful thinking).

He hasn't shown any particular focus on statistical analysis, though I guess you could say he's acquired OBP guys with some consistency---though, that's really pretty basic. There is absolutely no evidence he understands defensive metrics. Or the aging curve. Or replacement value. He definitely does not seem to get freely-available talent. While he talks about getting younger and building the farm (if you think about it) so does everyone else and he hasn't executed there or said anything insightful on the subject. I guess I don't see it.

Isn't his record that of a very generic GM with a huge budget, moderate success in the draft, and a consistently declining overall team? This, to me, says he should be worried about being canned. But I'm happy the constant refrain is that he's an asset, because it keeps getting him more rope.

There is absolutely no evidence he understands defensive metrics.

Nor is there any that he doesn't. He signed Lofton to replace Bernie in center, Torre refused to play him. Jeter is routinely among the best SS in the game, despite his defensive numbers. Just because primates can't get past OMG, BAD DEFENSE!!!!! and see the entire package, it doesn't mean that a GM isn't capable because he chooses to run guys out there who are below average fielders. He's gotten some old corner defenders, but he's made moves to get rid of Sheff and Abreu when their defense became unacceptable and made Matsui a DH this year. He's also brought up two young guys with questionable bats because they were plus defenders and traded a lousy defensive second baseman for a gold glove SS. Just because the defenses he runs out there aren't good doesn't mean he doesn't understand the metrics. He has managed to make the playoffs 9 out of ten years at the helm you know.

He definitely does not seem to get freely-available talent.

Only if you choose to ignore reality.

While he talks about getting younger and building the farm (if you think about it) so does everyone else and he hasn't executed there or said anything insightful on the subject.

He's made the farm system much better over the past few years according to all the minor league analysts out there and there has been a significant flow of youngsters over the past few years (Cano, Wang, Joba and along with decent list of roleplayers and trade bait).

Isn't his record that of a very generic GM with a huge budget, moderate success in the draft, and a consistently declining overall team?

Not at all. I mean, you're almost totally wrong. He has had no success in the draft until very recently, and that success is limited to Joba and some guys with potential as of right now. And a lot of his over slot signings in the late rounds have flopped. He didn't get Cole this year. Brackman might be a huge waste of time. I would call his draft record bad. He's had moderate success signing international talent.

And his team hasn't been constantly declining. He rode out the 98 team (a team he played a large part in building) through 2000, and reloaded and built a team that won somewhere between 94 and 101 from 2001 to 2007.

He does have a huge budget though.

I'm fairly unimpressed with Cashman's moves since the day he re-signed Matsui, but your position on him, as it has always been, is completely skewed. The field of play for the GM has changed over the last few years, and it seems Cashman hasn't adapted particularly well although he's also had at least his share of bad luck. The 2005 offseason will go down as one of the worst offseasons in Yankee history and that was on his watch, no excuses for that. My opinion of him has dropped over the last couple of years. A few first round exits and then missing the playoffs entirely will do that. And this offseason and what he's been saying has not been promising. While the Swisher trade is nice, I'm worried he views it as a bigger deal than it is. All that said, he's got a decent track record, no matter how you try to generalize it away, so he's probably earned another year or two (unless he lands neither Tex or CC, then he should be fired) to make this work.

I am not optimistic he's going to do what I want him to do this offseason, but I'm wrong pretty often, so I don't know if that's a big concern.

Just because primates can't get past OMG, BAD DEFENSE!!!!! and see the entire package

How far we've come since the '90s!

Nor is there any that he doesn't.

Did you look at the Yankee IF last year? Or the projected OF next year (which could change, of course).

He definitely does not seem to get freely-available talent.

Only if you choose to ignore reality.

This will only be more than spewage if you actually, you know, explained what you think the reality is.

Not at all. I mean, you're almost totally wrong. He has had no success in the draft until very recently, and that success is limited to Joba and some guys with potential as of right now. And a lot of his over slot signings in the late rounds have flopped. He didn't get Cole this year. Brackman might be a huge waste of time. I would call his draft record bad. He's had moderate success signing international talent.


Well, the first point here is who is controlling the draft for the Yankees has been a little hard to figure out at time. But Joba and Jackson is a pretty good recent stretch...Joba alone justifies some overall praise, because the value of an upper-tier arm is so huge. The busts are obvious, and that's why I didn't say he has had a good record (he doesn't)---but there's a number of teams with far worse draft records, too. So, I think your version of 'totally wrong' is a pretty strange one. We don't disagree on international signings, nor did I mention them.

My position on Cashman overall has been consistent and (thus far) a whole lot more accurate in describing the likely future results than your own (as your already-shifting view of him demonstrates). Maybe I'll be proven wrong on him ultimately, it wouldn't be the first time. However, given where are positions are today---and were in the past--on Cashman it's pretty bizarre for you to suggest I'm the one who has historically had a skewed view. This really seems like a repeat of your since-discredited position on Melky, really. We all know how that one ended.

I'll give it a go ...

How are we defining "freely available talent"? They have regularly picked up other teams still good but aging and expensive talent for very little in trade. Obviously there's money involved in that but the Yanks do have plenty of that.

There there's all the young talent they've brought up who have their cheap years like any other young talent.

But presumably you mean truly "freely available talent." Well, it's not clear the Yanks should be dumpster-diving all that often. Still, they've done quite a bit -- Molina, Betemit, Ensberg, Duncan, Sexson, Rasner, Ponson, Giese just in 2008. OK, that's a lot of suckitude there so we won't call that good dumpster-diving. Some other years, with the better players listed first:

2007: Minky, Phillips, Phelps, some of the 2008 crew
2006: A wave of suckitude from Craig Wilson to Kris Wilson -- seriously I count 18 FAT
2005: Aaron Small and an ocean of crap on the bench and in the pen
2004: Olerud, Clark, Karsay and the Run Fairy. Not sure how many of them were free.
2003: Garcia, Osuna?
2002: Spencer, Widger
2001: Boehringer, Witasick and Wohlers
2000: Spencer, Hill and a couple non-suckies

OK, he's not turning up gems but that's probably no worse than the typical GM's FAT track record. But, if anything, a Cashman fault has been NOT spending enough on the bench (and, to a lesser extent, the set-up men).

I think you're kind of making the point.

There's really very, very few examples of finding useful guys for nothing---Small, but that was (as they recognized) pure luck not actual talent. Betemit and the first group you name simply aren't that description (Betemit was, to me, a good get who was misused...he wasn't freely available talent, though).

And the problem is not just that the guys haven't performed (I'd guess the performance relative to salary for the group you list is below average, but not specatacularly below), but also that he has failed to build depth in the minors and the end of the bench from the true FAT types.

The fact that Cashman's benches have been typically awful is something I've mentioned many times, and in this thread. To me, part of the explanation (only part) is that he doesn't get how you should build depth. You want to get low-tier but serviceable vet FAs (e.g. one of the two primary groups of 'freely available talent' along with career minor leaguers, imo) and stack them up in AAA or at the end of your bench. I don't think that's occurred at the AAA level very effectively, and it often hasn't even occurred at the end of the bench, either. Now, if you spent money on the end of the bench (to your 'they don't need to dumpster dive point' which I agree with for the most part) and it was good, then certainly one can explain why you don't benefit from FAT. But when your bench isn't good, there's really no excuse, is there?

I'm confused about the Yanks allegedly not having a use for Abreu. I mean, they're still planning on starting Nady, right? And Abreu > Nady, since Nady's probably good for a 110-ish OPS+ at best (with not such great defense either).

110-ish OPS+ at best (with not such great defense either)

vs

120-ish OPS+ at best (with the worst defense in the league) at ~16m in arb...

This will only be more than spewage if you actually, you know, explained what you think the reality is.

Yes, because your posts have been loaded with specifics. Edwar, Veras, Bruney, Giese, Alfredo Aceves and Justin Christian for this past year. I mean seriously, it takes a five second glance at their BBref page to see how incorrect your position here is.

There's really very, very few examples of finding useful guys for nothing---Small, but that was (as they recognized) pure luck not actual talent.

Yeah, because so many GMs are consistently pulling good Major League contributors off of the waiver wire these days.

Betemit was, to me, a good get who was misused.

Well, you would know. I guess.

To me, part of the explanation (only part) is that he doesn't get how you should build depth. You want to get low-tier but serviceable vet FAs (e.g. one of the two primary groups of 'freely available talent' along with career minor leaguers, imo) and stack them up in AAA or at the end of your bench.

This is another example of Cashman building a bench that is praised in the offseason and pissed on in the offseason. When he signed Phelps, it was a good move, until it wasn't. Same with Pena, and then it was his fault for letting him get away. And Ensberg was lauded until he sucked. And Andy Phillips. The reason he's built bad benches is because he's taken risks on all these sabr favorites and they've flopped. That is his fault, if he were good at it, he would be able to identify these guys who will useful off the bench. But you're choosing to ignore the risk in trying to build a bench with upside. If bench players were solid locks to contribute, they wouldn't be freely available talent. He's obviously not great at building a bench, but he's tried for a few years now to put some guys with upside on the bench, it hasn't worked out, but at least he's trying to find hidden value.

I don't think that's occurred at the AAA level very effectively, and it often hasn't even occurred at the end of the bench, either.

What production are you expecting here out of retreads who are willing to take AAA contracts? Cashman has done that, and gotten what I imagine is a fairly decent return on these kinds of players. Terrence Long suck, Aaron Guiel was useful and so on and so on. Most of these guys simply are not good, that's why they're freely available. I'd like to see how many GMs routinely produce AAA retreads that are good roleplayers year in and year out. But that would require some specifics or a baseline from you. I'm not holding my breath.

And Abreu > Nady, since Nady's probably good for a 110-ish OPS+ at best (with not such great defense either).

Nady's defense is probably 10-15 runs better than Abreu's right now. Nady may not be clearly better, but since he's 12 million cheaper and in the same ballpark in terms of value, I think it's worth shedding Abreu's contract, especially since they already have at least one DH on the team.

My position on Cashman overall has been consistent and (thus far) a whole lot more accurate in describing the likely future results than your own (as your already-shifting view of him demonstrates).

Yes, it has been consistent, but since Cashman's performance hasn't been consistent, it just goes to show that you've pretty much been set in your line of thinking, regardless of what the facts are. My own shifting perception is not a sign that I was wrong three years ago, its that the facts change. Unless you think that a GM isn't susceptible to slumps or the changing landscape of the game or anything else that might effect his performance over the passage of time, which, considering how far removed from reality you are, wouldn't surprise me.

Maybe I'll be proven wrong on him ultimately, it wouldn't be the first time. However, given where are positions are today---and were in the past--on Cashman it's pretty bizarre for you to suggest I'm the one who has historically had a skewed view.

You were spouting this nonsense when Cashman was churning out 100 win teams every year. So yes, after 5 years of saying the same thing and being proven wrong each year, Cashman misses the playoffs for one year and all of a sudden you think you're vindicated?

This really seems like a repeat of your since-discredited position on Melky, really. We all know how that one ended.

Wow, you got me. Even if you didn't absurdly over exaggerate my stance on Melky, like you did last time we had this conversation, you're right, I was wrong about Melky. I'm totally discredited because no one, in the history of baseball, has ever been wrong about a young player before. You're absurd.

You were spouting this nonsense when Cashman was churning out 100 win teams every year. So yes, after 5 years of saying the same thing and being proven wrong each year, Cashman misses the playoffs for one year and all of a sudden you think you're vindicated?

That's certainly not an accurate description. I don't think Cashman built the great nucleus, I think he was around while Michael etc built it and it's declined as Cashman's control has gotten stronger and stronger. If you think that's inaccurate, that's your prerogative but (as I've said before) I think a sober look at the situation suggests that is the case.

Your saying "my position has changed because he's changed" seems, to me, a disingenuous way of saying that you didn't really assess things well in the first place especially since there's no description of why Cashman has changed to accompany it.

Even if you didn't absurdly over exaggerate my stance on Melky, like you did last time we had this conversation, you're right, I was wrong about Melky.

As was noted by a bunch of people in those discussions, no one but you is to blame for your position on Melky (amongst other things). It's not just that you were wrong (which happens to everyone) it's that you couldn't even remember your prior position. Then, after totally misrepresenting what you had argued in the past, you then posted a bunch of insulting nonsense like you have here about others who accurately remembered your position and who had a more realistic assessment in the first place.

This is, clearly, more of the same.

I don't think Cashman built the great nucleus, I think he was around while Michael etc built it and it's declined as Cashman's control has gotten stronger and stronger.

And yet a brief glance at the win totals post 2000 show that this a totally bogus position. But I'm sure if you keep repeating it, you'll continue to believe it's true. You might even convince someone who doesn't know any better.

As was noted by a bunch of people in those discussions, no one but you is to blame for your position on Melky (amongst other things).

Uh, ok. You act like I did something morally reprehensible. It's tough to take you seriously when you act so high minded about projecting baseball players.

Then, after totally misrepresenting what you had argued in the past, you then posted a bunch of insulting nonsense like you have here about others who accurately remembered your position and who had a more realistic assessment in the first place.

You're full of it. I know what I said about Melky (.370/.420, with good defense in CF, whoops), and I was wrong. It was a reasonable position that many people had at the time and you've taken personal offense to it for whatever reason. The fact that you continue to bring it up shows that your arguments isn't really objective. You made up a bunch of crap, either mistaking me for someone else or choosing to argue against your imagination. You haven't posted a single piece of evidence for anything you've said in this thread about Cashman or otherwise. You've made a bunch of general claims, throwing a bunch of #### on the wall to see what sticks and discarded your arguments as they've been refuted, resorting to revisionism and nonsense like the first paragraph in your last post.