I suppose it would make sense in the inevitable trade for Hanley Ramirez ;)

Having said that, I'd hope they can keep him, or at least get a long enough look to see what he's really got.

Brian Cashman has already offered him once, for a 32 year old making 16 mil.

Who was that?

Who was that?

Halladay, I guess.

Vernon Wells will be 32 a year from now if Cashman wants to get the trade gears moving again!

Re: [2], [3] - If you believe the rumors, Montero was offered straight-up for Halladay.

But what in the world would they trade him for? Depending on how they shake out the playing time, either LF or CF is their only hole, and if they're able to re-sign Damon on the cheap, they have virtually no holes. I guess they could use a more predictable #5 starter, though, if they decide to move Joba to the bullpen. But considering Montero is 20, a monster prospect and a catcher, they may as well keep him and see how he develops. Besides, the Yankees have to start getting younger sometime. But I've been saying that for years.

Again, if he can’t stick at Catcher then he’s more valuable to someone who can play him at First Base than he is to us if he’s a only DH.

What you mean "us", blog-boy?

What you mean "us", blog-boy?

Oh good, let's have that debate again. The 87 millionth time will definitely be the one that changes people's minds.

Debate? You give me too much credit. I was merely mocking those who try to associate themselves with teams they root for. Whether they blog or not, fans and the media.

I was merely mocking those who try to associate themselves with teams they root for.

One of the more hilarious things these people will do is wear the hats of the teams for which they root. So pathetic. They're mindless followers. I taught fifth graders. When one of them came in with a Yankees shirt or hat (and you'd be surprised how often this happens), I would make the whole class laugh at them. "You're not on the team, buddy!" I'd say, and then the kids would laugh loudly. We'd point at the offending sheep until he learned his lesson: Don't associate with the team you root for!

I've never said "we" when it came to the Yankees. As if I had something to do with the fortunes of the team. Perhaps "associate" was a poor choice of words. How about "identify with" or "considered part of the team"?

Zuvella!'s faux mocking aside, the use of 'we' and 'us' in the excerpt above does kind of grate, to me anyway. Not because I give a crap about how this blogger chooses to express his identification with the team he roots for, but because of the disconnect between writing as if you are a member of the organization while simultaneously making it painfully clear that you have no freaking clue about what the organization might do (much less any insider information).

It's a minor point, but I don't know why it would be too hard to use the third person pronouns for a post like this (that seems to at least aspire to be somewhat analytical) while still reserving the right to lapse into first person when you're just blogging about how awesome 'we' are.

If he really was "trade bait", Roy Halladay would be a Yankee right now instead of Javier Vazquez.

You take Montero, add in Gardner (instead of Melky) and Arodys Vizcaino, and one more live arm, and they could beat the package Phillies gave up.

Besides, the Yankees have to start getting younger sometime. But I've been saying that for years.

They've gotten younger with almost all of their recent moves.

They've gotten younger with almost all of their recent moves.

Yes, specifically replacing 2 36 year-olds (Damon, Matsui) with 29 and 30 year olds (Granderson and Johnson).

Being that I run TYU, and I doubt that Steve will be checking on in this thread, I figure I'll speak up for him. I think it's fair to not like the use of "we" and "us," but remember that Steve is writing a for a Yankee fan blog. I think many of our readers identify with that style of writing (and we have a fairly well spoken contingent of readers), and I have not had a single complaint about his writing in the 7 months that he has been on staff. If he was writing for a site that did not have a readership almost exclusively made up of Yankees fans, he would certainly do so a bit differently.

As to this point:

because of the disconnect between writing as if you are a member of the organization while simultaneously making it painfully clear that you have no freaking clue about what the organization might do (much less any insider information).

I think that is a bit harsh. Steve is not really writing as a member of the organization, he is writing as a fan who identifies with the organization. And as to the "painfully clear that you have no freaking clue," I'm not sure what you are getting at there. True, he does not actually have insider information. But if you accept the premise that they offered Montero for Halladay, I think it is perfectly reasonable to say that if he cannot catch and is limited to DH or 1B, he would have more value to a team that can play him at 1st. Now, I have doubts as to whether they could actually translate that gap in value into a trade that brings in fair value for Montero, which is why I disagreed with Steve in the comments to that post. But I think the notion is far from ridiculous, and could eventually be considered by the Yankees.

//end speaking for Steve

If he really was "trade bait", Roy Halladay would be a Yankee right now instead of Javier Vazquez.

I'm not so certain. Unwillingness to include him as part of a larger package for Halladay does not necessarily mean that they will not trade him. Heyman has said they offered him straight up for Halladay, and I would suggest that if the right young star came onto the market, they might consider including him in a package if they have internally concluded, as John Manuel claimed recently, that he is not an everyday catcher.

My feeling is that "we" or "us" is fine in speech, you're just rolling along talking and it comes out (I do it all the time). In writing I think it looks a bit more smug (not sure that's the word I want to use but I'm going with it). When you are writing in a format where you have time to read what you've written and edit it I don't think it should be used unless of course you actually are part of the "we" you are referring to.

I'm not so certain. Unwillingness to include him as part of a larger package for Halladay does not necessarily mean that they will not trade him. Heyman has said they offered him straight up for Halladay, and I would suggest that if the right young star came onto the market, they might consider including him in a package if they have internally concluded, as John Manuel claimed recently, that he is not an everyday catcher.

Who's going to be available that's better than Roy Halladay?

I think that is a bit harsh. Steve is not really writing as a member of the organization...

I thought it was pretty gentle, actually. He's not writing as a member of the organization, but he's speaking as a member of the organization would. Hence the disconnect. Hence the grating of "we" and "us" to my ear. That was my whole point, and like I said, it's a minor one.

But if you accept the premise that they offered Montero for Halladay, I think it is perfectly reasonable to say that if he cannot catch and is limited to DH or 1B, he would have more value to a team that can play him at 1st.

IOW, he's speculating. Which is fine, of course. But again, "we" and "us" doesn't really work when speculating about what "they" might do.

Who's going to be available that's better than Roy Halladay?

No one, but I think you might agree that there are players who have more long term value than Halladay, who is 32. Someone younger, with more years of control, might be more enticing to the Yankees. Just by way of example, if Josh Johnson had become available, I think a package for him might have matched or exceeded the Halladay package.

IOW, he's speculating. Which is fine, of course. But again, "we" and "us" doesn't really work when speculating about what "they" might do.

That's a fair point.

No one, but I think you might agree that there are players who have more long term value than Halladay, who is 32. Someone younger, with more years of control, might be more enticing to the Yankees. Just by way of example, if Josh Johnson had become available, I think a package for him might have matched or exceeded the Halladay package.

Really!?

Given Halladay's modest salary demands, consistency and durability, I wouldn't give anywhere close to the package for Johnson that I would for Halladay. Pitcher aging does not follow the same curve as hitters; 32 is not old when you're looking at the next 4 years or so (which is all they'd control a guy like Johnson for).

Given Halladay's modest salary demands, consistency and durability, I wouldn't give anywhere close to the package for Johnson that I would for Halladay. Pitcher aging does not follow the same curve as hitters; 32 is not old when you're looking at the next 4 years or so (which is all they'd control a guy like Johnson for).

I'm not saying that's what I would do, just what I think would happen. The package for Dan Haren was pretty expensive, as was the one for Beckett, if I remember correctly. Teams generally pay a premium to control a younger pitcher. I personally agree that Halladay would be a better bet than Johnson going forward.

When one of them came in with a Yankees shirt or hat (and you'd be surprised how often this happens), I would make the whole class laugh at them. "You're not on the team, buddy!" I'd say, and then the kids would laugh loudly.

It's a good start, but kind of a shame that you stopped there.

More of a shame that you didn't let him stop there.

Jesus for Mohammad: the ultimate challenge trade.

Jupiter for Zeus!