Back on October 1st, Brian Cashman was on WFAN with Mike Francesa – and Brian said something that has stuck with me for the last week now.
Francesa had asked Cashman something along the lines of “Do you feel it was a mistake to count on Phil Hughes and Ian Kennedy, two kids, to hold down 40% of your starting rotation this season?” And, to this, Cashman – somewhat defensively – offered something close to this answer:
“No. What hurt us was losing our ace, Wang, and then losing the replacement-ace, Chamberlain. Hughes and Kennedy not reaching expectations was not a huge issue – because they were our fourth and fifth starters. You can always replace fourth and fifth starters during the season. And, we did that.”
Here, I suppose that Cashman means Darrell Rasner and Sidney Ponson.
I should add that, also during that WFAN show, Francesa pressed Cashman as to what were his expectations for Hughes and Kennedy. To that, Brian offered something, if I recall correctly, that was close to 20 wins from the two combined, close to a five hundred record, and enough innings not to kill the bullpen.
Well, you got some innings from Rasner – about five per start. Ditto Ponson. And…I suppose…if you took the win rate for Rasner and Ponson this season (as Yankees) and projected it over 60 starts, they probably would have come close to combining for 20 wins over a full season with New York…
And, I guess…to Cashman’s point…through the years we’ve seen guys at the back-end of the Yankees rotation like an old Dwight Gooden, a nervous Kenny Rogers, a lazy Hideki Irabu, Denny Neagle, Ted Lilly, Jeff Weaver, Jon Lieber, Jaret Wright, an old Al Leiter, Shawn Chacon, Aaron Small, and Cory Lidle…and the team has always made the post-season.
But, I would hate to see the Yankees go into 2009 with an attitude of “We just need three solid starters – because we can always replace the fourth and fifth guys during the season.” To me, I would prefer to see the Yankees enter next season with four starters that you know would be good for 30+ starts, 180+ innings pitched, and 15+ wins each – followed by a fifth starter who is good for 25+ starts, 140+ innings pitched, and close to 10 wins.
If my memory serves me correct, the last time the Yankees had a starting rotation, like the one I would like to see them have in 2009, was 2003 – which was the last time the Yankees reached the World Series. Cowinky-dink, ya’ tee-ink?
17 Responses to “Give Me Four Horses, Please”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
October 8th, 2008 at 11:03 am
Sure, I wish the Yanks had the 2003 versions of Pettitte, Clemens, Moose, Wells, and Contreras too. But I’ll settle for the 2009 versions of Wang, Chamberlain, Sabathia, Pettitte, and Hughes.
October 8th, 2008 at 11:05 am
In all fairness, if Wang and Joba didn’t get injured they would have had 4 “horses”. Granted, Joba wouldn’t have thrown 180 innings but that’s still a damn good rotation.
October 8th, 2008 at 11:11 am
To me, I would prefer to see the Yankees enter next season with four starters that you know would be good for 30+ starts, 180+ innings pitched, and 15+ wins each – followed by a fifth starter who is good for 25+ starts, 140+ innings pitched, and close to 10 wins.
————-
Seems to be a fairly tall order. Doesn’t happen that often. I know it didn’t happen this year.
Has there been a team that has done it since? I would think the 05 White Sox, maybe…
October 8th, 2008 at 11:46 am
Having just checked 1996-03, 2003 was the only year they had a staff that fit the criteria you listed.
October 8th, 2008 at 11:57 am
steve-
i could not agree more with this concept. to be fair, the loss of wang took the yankees from having 3 reliable starters to 2. but, with our resources, 3 is not enough. i don’t think it’s too much to ask to have 4 starters entering every season that have a track record (important) of logging 180+ innings at above average production. you can’t control injuries, so if cash accomplished this, and injuries like wang occurred, i wouldn’t fault him. but it actually is more favorable to the youth movement (and the team) if you operate this way. you have to wonder what a hughes/kennedy might have done this year, when wang went down, after 2.5 months and 12-15 AAA starts. not that they would have done well, but may have been more confident, seasoned, and prepared. it isn’t important to me who the exact names in the rotation are next year. just as long as after wang, it’s some combination of mussina, pettitte, lowe, sabathia, etc. that, when you add them to wang, the total of pitchers with a track record of innings and success is 4.
October 8th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
~~Seems to be a fairly tall order. ~~
Hey, when you’re the New York Yankees and have $200 million to spend on payroll, it shouldn’t be a tall order.
October 8th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Hey, when you’re the New York Yankees and have $200 million to spend on payroll, it shouldn’t be a tall order.
——————–
But since Raf just showed that you can win four WS (’96; ‘98-’00)and one pennant (’01) without your “four horses”, why would you want to push your payroll to between $220-$250M just to have them?
Wouldn’t you only want to spend the money if it guaranteed something?
October 8th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
PS on my last response: why justify the expenditure just because you can when you can just as easily use that money to develop young, cost-controlled arms that can be horses at $300K a year instead of $25M a year?
October 8th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Hey, when you’re the New York Yankees and have $200 million to spend on payroll, it shouldn’t be a tall order.
———
The Yankees have always spent.
Like I said, from 1996-present, the Yankees have had only one year that fit the criteria; 2003. Even the vaunted 1998 club, didn’t have the rotation that fit your criteria.
Even the Braves weren’t able to do it, and their organization was known for pitching.
That it doesn’t happen often, tells me that it’s a tall order.
Is there any way you can run something in the CBE? I may be missing something…
October 8th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
Raf, what if we lowered the bar, slightly, to:
27+ starts, 165+ innings pitched, and 12+ wins each…
how many recent Yankees teams would meet that?
October 8th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
how many recent Yankees teams would meet that?
——–
How many teams in general would meet that?
For this year alone, it would be TB & CHI, if I’m not mistaken.
It has to be looked, at the very least, within the context of the leagues. Maybe it’s a Yankee-centric thing, maybe it’s a league-wide thing.
October 8th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
PS on my last response: why justify the expenditure just because you can when you can just as easily use that money to develop young, cost-controlled arms that can be horses at $300K a year instead of $25M a year?
———–
Besides, it appears a good chunk of that $200m is tied up in the offense.
October 8th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
I usually am a Cash defender, but you are 100% correct. Although I personally don’t think it was a mistake to rely on Kennedy and Hughes, his refusal to trade for a starter was ridiculous. He watched Boston pick up Byrd off waivers; he didn’t do anything.
October 8th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
his refusal to trade for a starter was ridiculous
———————
Which starter(s) should he have traded for mid-season?
FYI, Paul Byrd in Boston: 8 GS, 49 IP, 4.78 ERA, 1.39 WHIP, ERA+ 96.
Big deal that the Yanks didn’t grab him. If you think Paul Byrd was the difference between making and missing the post-season, I’d say you’re probably mistaken.
October 8th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
Maybe he meant a starter in the lineup?
October 8th, 2008 at 8:30 pm
I don’t think there is any question that Byrd helped the Red Sox out. A 96 ERA+ is fine from a number five pitcher. He did what was expected: pitch well enough to give them a chance to win and not get yanked in the fourth inning. He helped the team you were chasing, and Cash let him through waivers.
October 9th, 2008 at 9:01 am
Whether he helped or hurt Boston is only relevant to Boston. He wasn’t going to help the Yankees make the playoffs and that’s all that matters. Getting him just to block Boston would have accomplished very little since, again, the Yanks weren’t catching Boston by adding a league-average 5th starter to their rotation when they were already that many games behind AND still couldn’t score runs consistently.