I don’t know…39.2IP/3.63 ERA against the Red Sox looks very, very good to me. In fact, when backed up by stats like that, I don’t think you can “overrate” the wins statistic.

Of course, had the Yankees signed Beltran and shifted Bernie to DH, they likely would have made up that one win, although not by as much as you’d think as the trio you named only DH’ed 41 games.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You can’t just consider the trio’s time at DH; you also have to look at their time in the OF. Throw Matt Lawton into the mix. With Beltran on the roster, these players would have had approximately 450 less at-bats. And they were all terrible — sub-replacement level.

Even though Damon and Melky have been all right, Beltran is a much better defensive player than either one of them. That difference is probably worth a win per season.

Also, you’re overrating the flawed “wins” statistic. Five wins against the Red Sox looks much better than 39.2 innings of 3.63 ERA (his splits against the Sox)

Even if the difference between Vazquez and Johnson was only 1 win, that would have made the difference between winning and losing the division. Now, if you are the belief that division titles don’t matter, I guess that would be irrelevant, but I kind of like collecting those flags.

Of course, had the Yankees signed Beltran and shifted Bernie to DH, they likely would have made up that one win, although not by as much as you’d think as the trio you named only DH’ed 41 games.

Finally, Flaherty was awful in 2005, but even with Navarro around, something tells me Joe would have played Flash anyway.

Basically, I think the most important element in the discussion is the Unit’s 5 wins versus Boston that season. Maybe Javi could have matched that accomplishment, but I find that hard to believe. Unless one thinks Beltran would have made a difference in the 2006 and 2007 post season(overall offense and CF defense didn’t seem to be too much of a problem in both seasons with Damon and Melky), I don’t think there is much reason to lament getting the Unit instead of Beltran. Now, going forward, if Beltran continues to put up All Star seasons, well, then you’d have a stronger case.

Good questions, William.

(1) Vazquez could have eaten the innings. Johnson had an ERA+ that year of 112. Vazquez had an ERA+ of 100. A downgrade but not that huge of a downgrade. If you look at win shares above bench; Johnson had 9 that year and Vazquez had 8. That seems to slightly minimalize the difference between Johnson and Vazquez. But, still, I can’t see that the difference is anywhere close to the difference between Beltran and the 600 at-bats absorbed by Tony Womack, Ruben Sierra, and Bubba Crosby that year (Bernie would have been the DH).

[In addition, Vazquez could not have been worse in his post-season start than Johnson was in his that year against the Angels.]

(2) At the time, I thought that Beltran was asking for too much money. I realize now that I was wrong about that. There has been salary inflation and, with his defense, he’s worth it. In three seasons, he has had one disappointing season, an MVP caliber season, and an all-star caliber season.

Finally, Flaherty was terrible that year. Navarro may have been worth two more wins in the backup catcher slot. Even Brad Halsey would have helped out as a spot starter/long reliever.

You raise a valid point about the opportunity cost, but if you argue that the Yankees could have had Beltran instead of Johnson, you also have to account for: (1) 17 fewer wins in 2005, including 5 fewer wins against the Red Sox. From whom would those wins/innings have come? (2) Beltran has had an OPS+ of 96, 150 and 126 over the term of his contract. If the first and third year represent his more likely performance levels (career OPS+ of 116), then was/is Beltran really worth $17 million?

Nice job. I particularly like to see some credit go to El Duque — the Yankees’ best post-season pitcher of recent years. I didn’t know about the difficulty in negotiations.

I think that the problems of the Johnson deal are a little understated. The major cost for the Yankees in that deal was actually an opportunity cost. The money that went to Johnson could have gone to Beltran.

“A question on one of Cash’s recent prizes– ARod. With all the talk of roids and HGH, why has no one mentioned the recent NY Times article about Arod the slumlord. Arguably much worse than PEDs and totally believable.”
___

Because it was written by Selena Roberts, who has a demonstrated history of being a hack.

Simple answers to simple questions.

Excellent article, William, I really think it fills what I called for in my article- a breakdown of the deals Cashman has made, in context.

It definitely highlights the off-season prior to the 2005 season as a killer for Cashman, darkening a rather bright sea of success. Clearly, this off-season has had ramifications on the next three regular seasons and may have contributed to the disappointment many fans (like Steve) feel. Still, there was plenty to like about Cashman from the previous and subsequent seasons. The doubters will see this as “Cash gets props for the good things but not blame for the bad.” but once again, this is a website where the opposite is often true. Good work!

As for the first poster on the “slumlord” article, it was written by a woman who has had continued scorn for A-Rod and the Yankees at a newspaper (the Times) which has continuous scorn for the Yankees. Also this was her last feature article before she left the paper. Except for one small neighborhood, most of the tenants complained most about the management raised the late fee to $100 from $50, and they complained about how they had to pay more when A-Rod has all this money. They clearly do not understand business… should Steinbrenner’s hotels be free because he has money? The story is stupid.

And speaking of A-Rod:

It’s being reported that he has dropped Scott Boras for a new agent (a Hollywood agent who has no other athletes as clients).

I’ll give A-Rod credit for this much: at least he didn’t fire Boras right before he signed his contract, a la that scumbag Kenny Rogers, just to get out of paying him his fee.

With all the talk of roids and HGH, why has no one mentioned the recent NY Times article about Arod the slumlord. Arguably much worse than PEDs and totally believable.
——

PEDs — while morality is always bandied about — are really about getting an edge over an opponent.

I don’t think being a slumlord makes you hit more home runs.

So I would say in a baseball context, taking PEDs is a lot worse than being a slumlord.