Hank is so cool...it's great to return to the days of Yankee bluster from someone other than the Dark Lord Levine. I was never expecting the hear the phrase 'true Yankee' uttered so often ever again.

I used to have a regular Yankee feature on my site lampooning the latest from The Boss, but discontinued it a couple of years ago when Daddy Stein ran out of gas. I'm looking forward to its reinception; it looks like we're in for good times again.

but considering he’s been a lifelong Yankee

But is he a true Yankee?

ugh...it's all being flushed down the toilet.

ugh...it's all being flushed down the toilet.

Don't worry, they're moving to a new toilet next year.

On the one hand, I guess Hank has seemed like the GM, which is supposed to be bad I guess, but on the other, this is the second Yankee offseason in recent memory (last eyar was the other) where I have no complaints about anything that has or has not been done with the team, so I can't get too worked up until "GM Hank" does something wrong or does something to make me THINK he's going to do something wrong. Hank is awesome.

Hank's acting as the mouthpiece of the organization. Given that this is 1) not a part of all GM's job descriptions, 2) not something Cashman seemed especially interested in or good at and 3) not related to player personnel, the main question is left completely unanswered. Is Hank actually determining moves/overruling Cashman, or is he just blustering about them in the press? As silly and dumb as the Steinbrenners can sound, the baseball reporters sound even dumber when they don't recognize these as separate possibilities.

In a big-media town with competition from the Mets, the Yanks benefit by having a smart, nerdly GM behind the scenes and a blustery PR machine on the back page of the Post and DN, to keep the Mets off. That's an optimal strategy.

Hank's acting as the mouthpiece of the organization. Given that this is 1) not a part of all GM's job descriptions

Actually, that is part of the GM's job. This ain't fantasy baseball. The GM has to spend time dealing with fan & media relations to sell the team to the public.

Do you really expect next year's team to be competitive,

Do you really expect them NOT to be, kevin? They won the AL WC comfortably in 2007, and there is no reason at all not to expect them to be at least as good as they were with the continued development of their good young pitchers offsetting any age-based declines of their older position players. Competitive? Of course the Yankees are going to be competitive. Don't be frigging ridiculous.

kevin, just because you keep saying the Yankees defense is terrible won't make it so. They are average at 3B, terrible at SS, great at 2B, solid at 1B, good in LF, solid in RF, and (IMO) solid to good in CF. That adds up to about average or slightly above.

They have taken zero steps in correcting their major deficiency: their abominable defense. And that will only get even more abominable next year.

Defense was not the 2007 Yankees major deficiency. Pitching was. Starters who did not pitch deep enough into games and relievers who were not good enough (and plentiful enough) to pick up the slack. The young pitchers will begin to address these deficiencies, but upgrading the bullpen should be a much higher priority than trading offense for defense.

Look how long it took for Halliday.

149.3 IP, 126 ERA+ as a 22 year old.
Sophomore slump as a 23 year old.
Worked his way back through three minor leagues and threw 105.3 major league innings of 146 ERA+ as a 24 year old.
Led league in IP and started the ASG as a 25 year old.

How many of us would really complain about a development curve like that for any of our favorite young pitching prospects? More importantly, how can you seriously argue that a season like Halliday's 1999 from any one of Chamberlain, Hughes or Kennedy wouldn't be a huge boost for the Yankees?

A great deal of what is perceived as being pitching is in fact defense.

Yankee pitchers gave up 578 walks in 2007. Only five MLB staffs allowed more. How exactly do you and Mr. James propose to defense that?

Yankee pitchers gave 578 walks in 2007. Only five MLB staffs allowed more. How exactly do you and Mr. James propose to defense that?

excellent point, IE. And for what its worth, they only struck out 1009 - the only teams with fewer Ks were KC and the Rangers. Too few Ks + too many BBs = bad pitching

haha, Kevin gets punked and resorts to the world's stupidest argument.

Did it ever occur to you that the pitchers were aware their defense was suspect and were avoiding pitching to contact and accepted risking the BB as an alternative?

Did you ever watch those guys pitch when they weren't playing the Red Sox? The 2007 Yankee staff was filled with guys who couldn't hit the freaking ocean from a yacht.

Did it ever occur to you that the pitchers were aware their defense was suspect and were avoiding pitching to contact and accepted risking the BB as an alternative?

ha! brilliant! parried again! Seriously, talking to kevin about the Yankees is like talking to Bill Kristol about Iraq.

Hughes pitched 72 innings and had a 100 ERA+. If he does the same next year (provided he doesn't get hurt again), he is not going to help them get to the next level.

The Yankees don't have to get to a next level to be competitive. You do realize that, don't you?

Chamberlain had an ERA+ of 1192. Do you really expect the same from him next year?

Is there a reason not to?

Kennedy pitched way over his head. If he is inserted intot he rotation and given the ball every fifth day, the league is going to figure him out second time around and rock him.

So you're saying I shouldn't expect sub 3 ERAs from Ian Kennedy?

Expecting these young pitchers to carry the team is expecting too much, IMO.

The Yankees aren't counting on these young pitchers to carry the team. They're counting on them to be better than Clemens, Mussina, Clippard, DeSalvo, Karstens, Rasner, Igawa. If the three combined for a 100 ERA+ in 450+ innings, they've helped a ton and I don't think they're being asked to do too much more than that.

The other way of looking at it is that the 2007 Yankee were good enough to win a championship as they were. They got mildly unlucky against Cleveland, but simply got outplayed over 5 games. Sending the same team out there is not in any way a recipe for disaster.

The truth is, nobody knows how well Hughes, Joba, and IPK will pitch. I doubt all three will be lights out. My gut tells me one guy will be good, one guy will be average at best, and one guy will flame out. Hughes looked outstanding in the ALDS. If his hamstring is fully healed I am pretty confident he will be a better than average started.

Expecting these young pitchers to carry the team is expecting too much, IMO.

Nobody is expecting them to carry the team. But it is quite reasonable to expect them to collectively replace Clemens' 100 effective innings plus be a substantial upgrade over the 26 starts the Yankees got from a half dozen pitchers who had a combined ERA+ of around 70.

Did it ever occur to you that the pitchers were aware their defense was suspect and were avoiding pitching to contact and accepted risking the BB as an alternative?

Did it ever occur to you that they were running a bunch of guys out there (b/c of injuries) who didn't have major league stuff, and therefore avoided pitching to contact?

Igawa, Clippard, DeSalvo, Rasner and Henn gave up 107 of those BB in 183.7 IP. Ughh.

Hughes pitched 72 innings and had a 100 ERA+. If he does the same next year (provided he doesn't get hurt again), he is not going to help them get to the next level.

All Hughes needs to do to help the Yankees get to the next level is pitch 7.2 innings of 2.50 to 3.75 ERA in the first week of October.

They were overmatched by the Indians.

For four games, just like the Red Sox were. Your team was just lucky that they were playing a seven game series.

okay, let me rephrase my statement:

talking to kevin about the Yankees is like reading "Waiting for Godot" in Mandarin

The Yankees lost the division series because their #1 starter and 19 game winner pitched at below replacement level over two games.

Oh, for God's sake. Who cares if the Yankees were unlucky or not against the Indians? Can we get back to basics: that was in the American League Division Series. Having reached that stage, by definition, the 2007 Yankees were competitive. They won the WC going away, after very nearly having caught an outstanding Red Sox team that had pretty much left them for dead.

To say they have to get to "another level" is ludicrous. To say they won't be competitive in 2008 is nonsense. They have outstanding talent and the assets to acquire more. Of course they have some weaknesses -- the question here is not whether they're going to be a juggernaut. You're the one who set the bar at competitive, kevin, and the notion that they won't be is just inane. Stop it.

Kevin:
Can you clarify what you mean when you say the Yankees won't be competitive? Is that 88 wins? 81 wins? Less?

I should have known better than to use a loaded word like luck. The point that the Indians took three of the first four from the Red Sox, just as they had from the Yankees, stands however.

Having reached that stage, by definition, the 2007 Yankees were competitive....To say they have to get to "another level" is ludicrous. To say they won't be competitive in 2008 is nonsense.

Thank you, Sam. The voice of reason yet again.

They won't be a credible WS champion contender. They'll probably make the playoffs and get blown out in the first round again.

This is just flat out stupid. Every team that makes the playoffs is by definition a credible WS championship contender. Every team that makes the playoffs is also perfectly capable of stumbling and losing a short series.

I gotta ask you guys, you've all been around here for at least a couple of years, you're all reasonable people, so why the hell are you trying to have a dicussion about the Yankees with Kevin? Have you possibly missed how ludicrous and stupid his points about the Yankees and their players are and have been over the last 4 or 5 years?

-I was hopeful during the ARod negotiations that the Yankee fans were right, and Cashman actually was going to let ARod walk. And maybe one of Posada or Rivera. Now that the Yankees have acted rationally and spent their money, and it's clear that Hank's bluster is just for the media, not actually related to how the team will be run, this is bad news for everyone who roots against the Yankees. The only (slight) silver lining is watching Yankee fans defend Hank's flailing rhetoric as actual thought. It ain't much, though. The Yankees are really rich and really good.

-The '08 Yankees bear some vague resemblances to the '06 and '07 Red Sox. A good number of aging stars, a good number of young players with high upsides but risky downsides. I could see the Yankees winning lots of games and a WS is a good year, and missing the playoffs in a bad year.

I don't think I'm being a particularly paranoid Red Sox fan when I say:

1. The Yankees have made bigger improvements to the 2008 team than the Red Sox have.

2. If forced to pick one team, I'd have to pick the Yankees as the favorites.

Joba and Hughes can fix a lot of what ails a team Kevin - they're every bit as good, or better prospects as Buchholz is.

I could see people disagreeing about both these points, but I don't think it's insane to think so either.

Since all the other Sox fans are chiming in, I'll say:

1. The Yankees should have a terrific offense this year, as they did last year, meaning that they don't need that much pitching to make the playoffs this year.

2. At the same time, depending on rookie pitchers to throw large numbers of innings, as the Yankees are currently doing, is very, very dangerous, no matter how talented they are and not at all what the Red Sox have done the last couple of years. I'd feel a lot better if I was a Yankee fan if they went out and got some halfway reliable pitchers.

3. And because of their extreme reliance on unproven pitchers, I'd still pick the Red Sox to win the division next year. The Red Sox don't have as much offense as the Yankees, but their pitching is likely to be quite a bit better. If the Yankees somehow got Santana, I'd pick the Yankees

This is just flat out stupid.

Sure Is

1. The Yankees have made bigger improvements to the 2008 team than the Red Sox have.

What improvements have the Yankees made beyond simply resigning everybody that was a potential FA?

And IE, while I agree with you guys in your larger squabble with Kevin, there is a substantial difference between falling behind 3-1 in a 5-game series and falling behind 3-1 in a 7-game series. The Sox very well might have pitched Beckett in Game 4 in a 5-game set.

At the same time, depending on rookie pitchers to throw large numbers of innings, as the Yankees are currently doing, is very, very dangerous, no matter how talented they are and not at all what the Red Sox have done the last couple of years.

It's true that that is risky. But the Yanks got to the playoffs this year with 30 starts worth of something around a 67 ERA+ from Karstens, Igawa, Clippard, Rasner, Desalvo, Henn and Wright. I would be shocked if any of the rookies put up numbers like that. They also got 27 starts of an 87 ERA+ from Mussina. With Wang, Pettitte (or Silva or whomever they sign to replace Pettitte if he doesn't return) and the three rookies, I don't think it's likely to get 57 starts of such awful pitching. They still need to re-build the bullpen and either sign Pettitte or replace him, but assuming they do those things, the rookies only have to achieve at a poor level to improve the team. If they perform average, they will be a massive improvement.

Every team that makes the playoffs is by definition a credible WS championship contender.

This is just flat out stupid.

The 1973 Mets, the 1988 Dodgers, the 2003 Marlins, the 1987 Twins, and many others all say hi. And they, too, all ask you to just stop it, kevin.

You've now defined "competitive" in the incredibly silly way to mean that a team you actually <u>predict will make it to the play-offs</u> is, nevertheless, not "competitive." Never mind that no one in the history of the universe has ever used the term in that cockamamie way before.

But not only that. You are also maintaining that you can actually split hairs finely enough (and you are expert enough) to tell the difference between those teams that are good enough to make the play-offs and yet not be "competitive" under your definition.

Quite a discerning eye you have there. I'm sure it's just a coincidence that the team that happens to fit into this special "play-off caliber but not competitive" category just happens to be the team you loathe.

Who ended up winning, CP?

You know, I see this alot on the College Football message boards I go to. It's different there, fans seem to think that their teams performance qualifies their comments, as if their teams success is somehow a reflection on their own personal judgements and opinions. You can have an Alabama fan or an Oklahoma fan say the most ridiculous thing, and then when you point out how mindless it is, they simply say 11 National Championships or 7 or however many their team has won like it somehow validates their statement. I don't really get it, but apparently alot of people are like this. Fortunately, not many of them post here.

The 2007 Yankees were an old, tired team come playoff time.

their worst performance came from their best starter, who is 27 years old.

okay, I know I shouldn't be responding to kevin's shenangans, but I'll do it anyway. I'd love to see his response to this.

Sam,

I've got to dispute the 03 Marlins place on your list. Once they disposed of the awful Torborg, they were the best team in the National League through the end of the season. It doesn't take away from your larger point.

The 2007 Yankees were an old, tired team come playoff time.

That's funny, because to my reckoning, the 2007 Yankees lost in the playoffs mostly due to the failures of a 27-year-old ace, plus one memorable inning by a 22-year-old rookie.

What improvements have the Yankees made beyond simply resigning everybody that was a potential FA?

Joba to the rotation. Hughes to the rotation from the start of the year. Those are pretty big. I'll take those over Buchholz to the rotation and Ellsbury to CF - assuming that even happens.

Both teams were realistically quite even in 2007. Both teams have a number of older players likely to dropoff a decent amount. Both teams have some guys I'd expect to play better.

I think they're exceptionally close - I'm just sufficiently mesmerized by Joba in particular that I think he'll make the difference.

Joba to the rotation. Hughes to the rotation from the start of the year. Those are pretty big. I'll take those over Buchholz to the rotation and Ellsbury to CF - assuming that even happens.

OK, I just don't see those as "making improvements" as much as status quo.

I agree that the Yankees as currently constructed are not optimally put together for post-season success--the "secret sauce" thing, while it has its limits (ask the 2007 Cubs) also provides useful information.

The "X" factors in that are the age of the Yankees position players and the youth of the starting pitchers. I agree with Weekly Journalist in 24 WRT the HypeTriplets. I see the Yankees as having a lot of variance, in that so few of their key guys are in their primes. If Posada drops way off, ARod drops off some and the HypeTriplets have problems, 86-76 is a possibility. OTOH, if either Hughes and/or Chamberlain is really good right away, they can go 97-65 and be better prepared to do well in post-season.

The idea that the Yankees have improved is based entirely on the young Ps, since all they have done so far is apparently retain their FAs. What they will do about 1b and the pen are still unknowns, and it is not even December yet. So I think it is more accurate to say they "may improve" than they have.

Clemens, kevin??? Oy.

In a big-media town with competition from the Mets, the Yanks benefit by having a smart, nerdly GM behind the scenes and a blustery PR machine on the back page of the Post and DN, to keep the Mets off. That's an optimal strategy.

Right, because that's the most important part of building a winner...

With Wang, Pettitte (or Silva or whomever they sign to replace Pettitte if he doesn't return) and the three rookies, I don't think it's likely to get 57 starts of such awful pitching. They still need to re-build the bullpen and either sign Pettitte or replace him, but assuming they do those things, the rookies only have to achieve at a poor level to improve the team. If they perform average, they will be a massive improvement.

All of this assumes the rookies will perform at all. There is a very good chance that one or more will spend a substantial part of the season on the DL. If that happens, you're back to throwing whoever you can find out there, and praying that they aren't awful.

There is a very good chance that one or more will spend a substantial part of the season on the DL.

what's your basis for that? I think its safe to assume that none of them will make 30 starts, but a "substantial part of the season on the DL"?

what's your basis for that?

Arm injuries are fairly common among young pitchers with no track records of durability.

There is a very good chance that one or more will spend a substantial part of the season on the DL.

I guess, I don't think it's any more likely then any other pitcher getting hurt though.

If that happens, you're back to throwing whoever you can find out there, and praying that they aren't awful.

Alan Horne is supposed to be a very good pitching prospect who I think made it to AA. He might be able to slot in for a few game, I don't know. They'll have Mussina as depth, instead of on the front line, which is a huge upgrade. And all the other crap will have added experience, which could be a good thing, although Clippard fell apart after he was sent down, I think Wright would be a better bet to help this year, I don't know how/if Desalvo progressed last year. The other stuff is just crap but it's possible I'm missing someone. The big edge over last year will be having Moose in the pen though.

Edit: Oh yeah, Ohlendorf, I don't know how I forgot him, is he still gonna be used as a starter or is he bullpen from here on out?

I do have to say that I'm not sure I'd pick the Yankees right now over the Red Sox as 'the team to beat' in the AL East. In terms of offense, I expect slight declines from both the Yankees and the Red Sox because their offensive cores are aging. Lowell and Varitek will decline, and it's likely that Ortiz and/or Manny will decline. Pedroia will improve, but who knows what Drew and Youkilis will do. In New York, A-Rod and Posada will to decline from their ridiculously good years, and age will possibly take its toll on one of Jeter/Matsui/Abreu; all these declines will likely offset improvements by Cano and Melky.

While the Yankees defense is decent, the Red Sox have a better defensive team.

It's pitching that separates the teams. Granted, the Yankees' pitching will be better than 2007. Last year, Igawa, Clippard, DeSalvo, Karstens, Pavano and Wright combined for 31 starts, giving the Yankees a measly 158 innings with an ERA+ of 70. Ian Kennedy need only pitch 170 innings (very likely given that he pitched a total of 165 innings last year between MLB and the minors) with an ERA+ of 90 to provide a notable upgrade. Add in, say, 130 innings from Hughes instead of 73 (Hughes pitched 146 innings in the minors in 2006), and 100 innings from Joba (with an ERA+ of perhaps 100), and you've got improvement with the young guns pitching only 400 IP. That said, the Yankees will still need innings eaters, even if they sign Pettitte or another starter. The team needs to beef up its bullpen, even though some starters might be usable as swingmen sometimes (I'm thinking of Mussina or a youngster like Joba).

The Red Sox have the superior rotation right now, and also have a superior bullpen when Gagne isn't blowing games. To me, that's the big difference. I'd say it's very close, but I still give the Sox the edge as the slightly better team.

But it's still early in the offseason and both teams could make moves to change that.

What? Are you saying clemens was an asset in the playoffs, Sam? C'mon now. He sucked.

I'm saying WTF does Clemens have to do with whether the Yankees will be competive in 2008??? You stated in that post:

Good luck winning with those guys next year.

Clemens is irrelevant; indeed, his departure is one pretty good indication that the Yankees are moving in exactly the direction you refuse to recognize of NOT just sticking with the same old formula, and are going to get younger in the pitching staff.

You really do have a knack, kevin. It takes quite the extremist to get me to defend the damn Yankees, but somehow, you manage the trick.

What? Are you saying clemens was an asset in the playoffs, Sam? C'mon now. He sucked.

I'm saying WTF does Clemens have to do with whether the Yankees will be competive in 2008???

oh, and the Yankees ended up winning the game he started

Riddle me that.

Kevin = Jesus Melendez?

If that happens, you're back to throwing whoever you can find out there, and praying that they aren't awful.

This really depends on Pettitte. If he returns the 6th starter on the depth chart is Mussina who isn't good any more but still far from terrible.
Also the Yankees farm system is deep on pitching. The big 3 are the front line but NY has some other very interesting potential starters that could make their presence felt on the big league club in 08. If they are forced once again to cobble 30 or starts out of the system there's a good chance those starts will be a fair bit better than what they came up with last year(which isn't saying much really.)

Why do Yankee fans even read what kevin has to say about the Yankees?

In fact, why does anyone care about what kevin has to say about the Yankees?

While I agree with the crowd that Kevin's position re the competitiveness of the Yankees is silly, I do think that the Red Sox are clear favorites to win the east again next year. The rosier views of the Yankees' rotation are based on quite a bit of wishful thinking and potential upside. It certainly could play out that way in 2008, but I do not see it as very likely. If the Yankees go in with the team they have today, and even if Pettitte comes back, the pitching staff will be full of question marks top-to-bottom. I don't see how that team could be considered the favorite.

Did it ever occur to you that the pitchers were aware their defense was suspect and were avoiding pitching to contact and accepted risking the BB as an alternative?

I'd just like to back up and suggest that this may be the greatest post ever. Inner-circle stuff.

In the end we are all dead, kevin.

And IE, while I agree with you guys in your larger squabble with Kevin, there is a substantial difference between falling behind 3-1 in a 5-game series and falling behind 3-1 in a 7-game series. The Sox very well might have pitched Beckett in Game 4 in a 5-game set.

The original argument is that the Yankees lost to a clearly better than them Indians team, which in turn lost to a clearly better than them Red Sox team. Implying that the Red Sox are super-duper better than the Yankees in this tournament.

IE and other have pointed out that the Yankees just barely lost and the Sox just barely won, and it's entirely possible that a simple change in format would have yielded a different result. Which is an argument that I think has legs.

FWIW, I think that all entries into the MLB postseason are legitimate World Series contenders, particularly since the DS series came into play. In my opinion, forecasting that a team will make the playoffs but lose in the first round is way too specific and unlikely.

I do think that the Red Sox are clear favorites to win the east again next year.

I agree with this. The Yanks need to substantially improve their bullpen and show that they know how to build a bench and didn't just get lucky last year. I'd like some certainty on how the 1b/DH/LF situation is going to work out, it seems fine now, but sub-optimal.

The big edge over last year will be having Moose in the pen though.

I have a hard time believing this is going to happen. I know that they did it last year for several weeks, but adjusting on the fly seems a lot easier than convincing a veteran near Hall of Famer to become a swingman for a full season.

Isn't it much more likely that Kennedy is in the pen? Or that one of Kennedy, Joba, or Hughes starts the year in AAA? I mean, the dude is making, what, 14 million next year?

(This is all assuming there is no Johan deal. If there is, it becomes a virtual certainty that Moose is a starter, since one or more of the young guys will be on the Twins.)

EDITed to add: by "adjusting on the fly" I mean convincing a guy to go along with the idea that he's had a few bad starts, let's give you a break and have you throw out of the bullpen, see how that goes. Not that Mussina was ecstatic about that, either.

Except they are. They had an opportunity to really reshuffle the deck this year and what did they do? They resigned everybody for more money.

I see no way that this "opportunity" wouldn't have resulted in terrible short-term results. Sure, the ages of the signees are concerns, but I saw no replacements for these players either inside or outside of the organization that could reasonably be predicted to give half of the production of these aged ones.

Is that an organizational failure? Sure it is. But assuming that a 90-loss season is seen as a complete and total disaster for this franchise, I don't know of any other realistic option.

saw no replacements for these players either inside or outside of the organization that could reasonably be predicted to give half of the production of these aged ones

That's the key. Who's your catcher if you don't sign Posada? Who's your closer if you don't sign Rivera? Who's your 3B if you don't re-sign Rodriguez? Now the first two guys no doubt got a year too long on their deals, and the third got 3 years too long, but what does that mean for the 2008 and 2009 Yankees? Very little. What do you do, let those guys walk and sign Barrett/Torrealba/Loduca and Cordero/Linebrink/use one of the young'uns at closer and Lowell/start Betemit? Is that really the better strategy?

I have no problem with what the Yankees have done to-date, but I don't think they've made themselves better than they were last year either. Kevin is right (did I just say that?) when he points out that the Yankees' projected improvement is solely from the young pitching, and is likely to be balanced by expected declines from the aging offense. If the Yankees want to catch the Red Sox they will either need luck or further improvement in the pitching staff, or both.

Hank is all over the papers this morning on Johan. apparently he is taking the lead in that trade too. what does Cashman do for this organization anymore?


The inmates are running the asylum

Well, maybe it would. But so what? It's not like continuing to do what they have been doing the last few years is working.

You do realize that the Yankees sell 4 mil. tickets a year, have the highest rated cable broadcasts of pretty much any team in sports history, and make the playoffs every year.

What they're doing is working quite well, thank you.

They were very lucky to win 4 WS in 5 years, and mildly unlucky to not win any in 7 years.

Yes, kevin, but I have to think that the smart baseball people who work in NY knew it too. And more or less guaranteeing a putrid 2008 had to be an option against "setting themselves up for 2009". And clearly the former option was not acceptable in the Bronx.

It's not like continuing to do what they have been doing the last few years is working.

If they were winning 65 games a year and Brett Saberhagen was loose in the clubhouse with a Super Soaker filled with bleach, I'd agree. But while they clearly haven't fulfilled their ultimate objective, making the playoffs 12 straight times means that they're not failing in any but the most stringent senses of the word.

If the Yankees want to catch the Red Sox

But they don't have to, as said Red Sox proved very well in 2004.

Just make the playoffs every year and you'll get some rings.

Really. Think about this. What if the Yankees had decided to let the old guys walk, load up the vault and take the draft picks? Maybe 2008 would be a flop but they'd be in a phenomenal position come 2009, when a lot of attractive free agents would be available and the farm system would be restocked with a lot of fresh new faces who could contribute at low cost

I am not going to defend the Yankees, but this is just plain stupid!

A) we have no idea how next years market will look till the summer at the earliest. Last year a this time, everybody thought this was going to be a solid free agent market, and it is obviously not.

B) in what world do you live in where draft picks are contributing in a year.

This dude is just playing you Yankee fans like a fiddle. pushing your buttons and giggling. why do you all even give him the time of day.

I don't think the Yankees (so far) will be better than this year... however, they will be a heck of a lot better than I thought they might be. Keeping all 3 of A-Rod, Posada and Rivera surprised me. I thought they would lose 1 or 2 of them (Not Posada).

Now there is talk that they and the Twins are talking about Santana. If they pull that off they go from being a play-off contender to being a clear WS front runner.

a whopping payroll advantage over everyone else

after buying two rings, are Red Sox fans still using that line ... please ...

I have a hard time believing this is going to happen. I know that they did it last year for several weeks, but adjusting on the fly seems a lot easier than convincing a veteran near Hall of Famer to become a swingman for a full season.

Isn't it much more likely that Kennedy is in the pen? Or that one of Kennedy, Joba, or Hughes starts the year in AAA? I mean, the dude is making, what, 14 million next year?

Well, if Moose is in the rotation, then Kennedy or Joba starts in AAA and there's the depth over last year. Either way, the Yanks have 6 starting pitchers this year, not 4 and that will mean it will take a lot more injuries to get to the dregs of the farm system then last year which is a massive improvment for the Yanks.

This dude is just playing you Yankee fans like a fiddle. pushing your buttons and giggling. why do you all even give him the time of day.

You are now the third person in this thread to ask this question.

I'm happy that the players and people in the organization feel that not winning a WS is a failure. But if they expected fans to hold them to the same standard, I didn't get the memo.

If the only thing that could make me happy was a WS win, why on Earth would I watch any non-postseason games?

Some of the great moments of my baseball-rooting life have been in the service of winning a WS - Leyritz popping one off Wohlers, Sojo's 26-hopper against the Mets, and others. But many of them have absolutely nothing to do with who won the World Series that year - I think the greatest regular-season game I ever saw, the Jeter face-plant game, happened when the dastardly Sox finally won one. I had a great time watching the 2001 World Series, and my team didn't finish the deal. I remember my surroundings when Aaron Boone hit that one, and Joe Torre let Jeff Weaver lose the Series the next fortnight.

Well, if Moose is in the rotation, then Kennedy or Joba starts in AAA and there's the depth over last year. Either way, the Yanks have 6 starting pitchers this year, not 4 and that will mean it will take a lot more injuries to get to the dregs of the farm system then last year which is a massive improvment for the Yanks.

Oh, I agree. I just think you're likely going to have to deal with Mussina sucking for a few weeks, or months, before they're going to pull the trigger and do something about it (DFA? It's certainly possible- but I'm thinking he'd have to be in the 6's in terms of ERA to make that happen).

I think it's more likely that little k gets over Pedroia than that Mussina is DFA'd. And if a pitcher with that track record, even one who hasn't performed in awhile, is available for the minimum salary, I think 29 teams would find a way to use him.

just think you're likely going to have to deal with Mussina sucking for a few weeks, or months, before they're going to pull the trigger and do something about it

I'm guessing if it comes to that they'll deal with it the same way they dealt with Cone's implosion in 2000 - convince him he needs rest and retooling, put him on the DL with "fatigue", send him down to Tampa and hope he figures something out.

Some of the great moments of my baseball-rooting life have been in the service of winning a WS

For me, the greatest game of the 1990's Yankees came in a series they would lose.

The 15 inning Jim Leyritz game versus Seattle was monumental. The crowd had not gone corporate yet (at game 6 in the 1996 WS the people next to me didn't know the difference between Mariano Rivera and Mariano Duncan) and from before the game started, the energy was unreal.

The crowd was in a frenzy all game. When Mattingly homered, it was insane. The field was littered with garbage, and the delay was so long Pinella was looking for a forfeit.

To have 15 innings of that, and a walkoff in the rain...priceless.

I think it's more likely that little k gets over Pedroia than that Mussina is DFA'd. And if a pitcher with that track record, even one who hasn't performed in awhile, is available for the minimum salary, I think 29 teams would find a way to use him.

You're probably right- I think it's unlikely, too. I just also think it's unlikely that a guy "with that track record" starts the season as a swingman.

Isn't it much more likely that Kennedy is in the pen?

I don't think so. Kennedy is in the best position of the three young guns to pitch a full season in the rotation. He's the one who threw 165 innings last year without injury, and he seems to have the poise and makeup to handle struggling a little without it completely wrecking his confidence. I think it's a lot more likely that we see Chamberlain and Hughes getting plenty of extra rest and spending some time in the pen. I expect Kennedy to take the ball every fifth day and be a slightly below league average starter.

Oh, and invoking Carrot-top is the new Godwin.

Well, maybe it would. But so what? It's not like continuing to do what they have been doing the last few years is working

They've continually won their division and gotten to the playoffs. The failure to win every World Series championship is only "failure" by the Yankees admittedly high standards, but that's one of the drawbacks of having such exceedingly high standards.

Snapper, I was also at that Seattle playoff game, and it was amazing. My friends and I -- and much of the stadium, it seemed -- just stood there while "New York, New York" played and let the rain fall on us. In terms of games I've attended in 1990s, that ranks up there with the 1996 "Jeffrey Maier" Baltimore playoff game.

Also, I agree with IE on the potential swingman. The organization wants Joba to transition to a starter, but given his proven bullpen experience, he seems the most likely to be a swingman for the 2008 season.

And who knows: if Igawa could contribute at some point in 2008. His K/BB ratio wasn't bad in AAA this season, but he gave up too many HR. It could be that he develops into a not-bad middle reliever.

The 1973 Mets, the 1988 Dodgers, the 2003 Marlins, the 1987 Twins, and many others all say hi. And they, too, all ask you to just stop it, kevin.


Sam, you're confusing regular season record with post-season likelyhood of success. All the teams you mention had young players who came on strong as the season progressed. The 2007 Yankees were an old, tired team come playoff time. And the 2008 version is going to be even more old and tired.

One nice thing about having assembled a database about team tendencies over the last year (buy this year's THT Annual for an article showing part of what it has!) is that I can look this up.

1973 Mets had the 7th youngest pitching staff and tenth youngest bunch of position players in the NL.

The 1987 Twins had teh 12th youngest pitching staff and ninth youngest bunch of hitters in the AL.

The 1988 Dodgers had the 10th youngest pitching staff and ninth youngest offense.

The 2003 Marlins had the youngest pitching staff and the third youngest offense.

I haven't put in team ages for 2007 in yet, but in 2006 the Yanks were 14th youngest in both hitting and pitching.

Again, I cannot believe that any Red Sox fan would actually use the 'ol "payroll line" in a debate against a Yankee fan
It is extreme hypocrisy. extreme. and yet you trot it out again three more times.

looking at the source, I can't say I am shocked.

Kevin I take back what I said earlier, you don't debate like a girl.
You debate like you are a three year old girl.

i guess it is tough ..

waking up after 85 plus years to find out your team wasn't cursed all those years, they just sucked.
I guess I would be bitter too.

BTF: Baseball for the Thinking Four-year-old.

Question: what do the Yanks intend to do at first next year? Bring back Meink....z or something else?

Since people were talking about the depleted back of the Yankees rotation in 2007, here's the actual numbers of their starters (using just numbers as starting pitchers):

They had 29 starts (Igawa, Clippard, DeSalvo, Wright & Karstens) totalling a combined 131.3 IP (AL average is about 5.8 IP/GS) in which they allowed 103 runs, 101 earned for an ERA of 6.92 and an ERA+ of 66. Having looked it up, an average fifth slot in the rotation provides an ERA+ of around 78-80. An ERA+ of 66 is well below average. Odds are, a handful of teams got worse mileage out of their fifth starters, but that's it.

With Mussina and Pavano, the Yanks had another 29 starts at an ERA of 5.16 and an ERA+ of 89. That's exactly what teams normally get from their #4 slot.

An ERA+ of 66 is well below average. Odds are, a handful of teams got worse mileage out of their fifth starters, but that's it.

With Mussina and Pavano, the Yanks had another 29 starts at an ERA of 5.16 and an ERA+ of 89. That's exactly what teams normally get from their #4 slot.

So, if that's bad performance looking at all teams, then for a pennant contender it has to be really awful.

Actually, getting a 6.92 ERA from the 29 starts from your worst starters isn't that uncommon. A quick check shows at least half the teams in the league getting something similar. There were only a few teams that didn't have a few pitchers getting torched, and they were generally known for the depth of their rotations.

Actually, getting a 6.92 ERA from the 29 starts from your worst starters isn't that uncommon. A quick check shows at least half the teams in the league getting something similar. There were only a few teams that didn't have a few pitchers getting torched, and they were generally known for the depth of their rotations.

They were also generally known as contenders. Getting 29 starts of only 4.5 IP per start at an ERA+ of 66 is not typically associated with making the playoffs, is it?

Actually, getting a 6.92 ERA from the 29 starts from your worst starters isn't that uncommon. A quick check shows at least half the teams in the league getting something similar. There were only a few teams that didn't have a few pitchers getting torched, and they were generally known for the depth of their rotations.

Really? Hmmm. could be. When I wrote the article linked to in #111, I went through a divvied up each start by who replaced who in the rotation, not just by combining the worst series of starters. So I might be overestimating, but still 66 is a really effing bad ERA+, and most of those starts should've been in the same slot.

Lemme look it up.

Last year the Yanks had a combined starter ERA of 4.57. Let's look at Detriot, who had the next worst starter ERA of 4.68. (Note: AL starter average was 4.61, so these two squads were right around average). They had 32 starts of 6.27 ERA. That's really bad, but still not even within a half-run of the Yanks bottom.

Next worst starting rotation was Baltimore. They had a starter ERA of 4.86. They had 7 pitchers combine for 27 starts and . . . an ERA of 8.25. WOW! That's amazing.

Next worst was KC with a 4.88 starter ERA. Bottom feeders: had 26 starts and an ERA 7.99. Oophf! Dizzy, you might be on to something here.

Next worst: Seattle: 5.16 starter ERA. 29 starts at 8.03.

Next worst: Tampa. 5.20 team starter ERA. 30 bottom feeder starts, ERA 7.86. Bleach.

Worst: Texas: 5.50 starter ERA. This should be good. 31 bottom feeder starts at an ERA of 6.99. Hey, wait, that's actually comprabable. I'll be damned. They were just really solidly horrible across the staff. Live'n'learn.

Let's go back to the middle. Yanks had the 8th best starter ERA. White Sox were 7th best at 4.47 ERA. Incredibly, the worst ERA they had from any starter (minimum: 1 GS) was Jose Contreras with his 5.79 over 30 starts. Far better than the Yanks.

Next best was Minnesota: They only had 17 bottom feeder starts from two pitchers (their third worst ERA was the man called Boof at a 4.92 ERA in 30 GS). Those 17 GS had an ERA of 6.22. Far better than the Yanks.

Next best: Oakland. Just eyeballing it, they only had 18 starts from guys with ERAs over 5.00. Granted, they're all over 7, but the Yanks had 29 from guys averaging at nearly 7. Depending on how you shake it, it's either 18 GS at 8.67 ERA or 38 at 6.62 ERA. Given how Mussina and Pavano did with the Yanks, I think Oakland had better back-of-rotation starters.

Next best: Toronto. They had exactly four starts from guys with starter ERAs over 6. Not nearly as bad as the Yanks.

That just leaves LAA, BoX, and Cle. Boston had 1 GS from a guy with a starter ERA over 6. LAA's worst starter, Colon, had an ERA a half-run better than the New York 29. Ditto Cleveland.

Looks like there was a neat split dividing the league in half. Toronto, Cleveland, LAA, Boston, Chicago, Minnesota and Detroit all got really good production from their bottom parts.

Oakland and New York had really horrible production.

Baltimore, KC, Texas, Tampa, & Seattle could only dream of being really horrible.

I'd say the Yanks have room to grow, especially given how good their top 2-3 pitchers were for them on the year.

When I wrote the article linked to in #111...

"The URL is invalid and cannot be loaded."

Think back to the original argument. The Yankees got 29 starts from guys who stunk. There were people implying that you can pretty much count on that not happening again. Part of the improvement will be the fact that its unlikely the Yankees will need 29 starts from people performing this badly.

I pointed out that its not that unusual - about half the teams had something similar. My point is that its far from a slam dunk that the Yankees aren't going to have to use some starters that really aren't going to perform. This team has a lot of strengths, but depth of the starting rotation is not one of them.

Unless all three of their young pitchers are able to pitch all season long, and perform realtively well, I wouldn't be shocked to see the Yankees continue to use starters who just aren't that good. The Yankees do have room to grow in this area, but its a pretty good possibility that the growth won't happen.

GR, you are a true comedian. On a par with Jerry Lewis, Curly and Carrot-top.

I am profoundly offended that Curly Howard was compared to Jerry Lewis and Carrot-Top. kevin, you are a Philistine.

Question: what do the Yanks intend to do at first next year? Bring back Meink....z or something else?

They currently have Giambi, Matsui, Damon, Betemit and Shelley Duncan to fill LF, 1B and DH next season. A trade could change the situation but I don't think they'd mind starting the season that way.