• WasWatching.com Water Cooler Talk 12/18/08

    Posted by on December 18th, 2008 · Comments (61)

    Feel free to use this post as a place for you to comment on anything Yankees-related (or within reach of tagging the bag of being Yankees-related on a decent slide) today. It could be a casual conversation offering, or, something you saw in the news, or something very detailed that you want to share that’s within the territory of Yankeeland.

    Or, comment on something that someone else has posted here in the comments…

    Have fun. Play nice. And, remember, keep it Yankees-focused.

    Comments on WasWatching.com Water Cooler Talk 12/18/08

    1. Corey
      December 18th, 2008 | 4:46 pm

      lol went from good lookin to hot mid-thought and thats what we get

    2. Raf
      December 18th, 2008 | 4:48 pm

      If Burnett gives the Yanks 25 starts in 2009, I would find that very disappointing (although entirely expected).
      ——————–
      Marcel has him projected (using 3 years worth of stats) @ 187 innings, but I would be surprised if he threw that much. I’m expecting anywhere from 25-30 starts (160-170 innings), based on his career.

    3. Corey
      December 18th, 2008 | 4:55 pm

      How long until somebody charges the mound after a save of his?? The only way the Mets can be hated anymore would be if they signed Bonds.
      =======

      i think that’s the way they like it, heck last time they were the most hated team in the league they wont the world series

    4. Raf
      December 18th, 2008 | 4:56 pm

      Sorry Raf, I made myself sound like a 10-year-old. You don’t need to “prove me wrong” and I won’t “admit it” like you need to one-up me. My bad, I think I got carried away.
      ————-
      I took it to mean within the context of our discussion, no offense taken.

      But looking at the boxscores, we see that the defense failed, the offense failed, the starters failed, and the bullpen failed at crucial time. The nature of the game is that you will have successes and failures. Few times you will have a perfect game on all sides of the ball.

      Playoffs are random luck, sometimes the expected happens, sometimes the unexpected happens.

      I guess the only way we can see if there is some sort of pattern WRT SP is to take a look at all playoff series from 1995 on. It could be a league thing, it could be a “Yankees” thing.

    5. MJ
      December 18th, 2008 | 5:10 pm

      Marcel has him projected (using 3 years worth of stats) @ 187 innings, but I would be surprised if he threw that much. I’m expecting anywhere from 25-30 starts (160-170 innings), based on his career.
      ————–
      You’re not helping to convince me.

      For $16.5M a year, 160-170 innings is an unacceptably low total.

    6. Raf
      December 18th, 2008 | 6:08 pm

      For $16.5M a year, 160-170 innings is an unacceptably low total.
      ———-
      How so? Burnett made $12M 2007 (165 IP)& 8 (221). He would’ve made that had he not opted out. He gets 4M more per year with the Yanks.

      Given other contracts around the league, that seems about right.

    7. Raf
      December 18th, 2008 | 6:36 pm

      That doesn’t make any sense. Because mistakes, bad luck, etc. occurred in the past, the solution is to say that a 25-start season is objectively good?
      ——————-
      What I’m trying to say is that the Yanks could’ve used a pitcher with Burnett’s production over the past 3 years. Will they get it over the next 3 years? We will see.

    8. MJ
      December 19th, 2008 | 11:02 am

      1) How so? Burnett made $12M 2007 (165 IP)& 8 (221). He would’ve made that had he not opted out. He gets 4M more per year with the Yanks.

      Given other contracts around the league, that seems about right.

      2) What I’m trying to say is that the Yanks could’ve used a pitcher with Burnett’s production over the past 3 years. Will they get it over the next 3 years? We will see.
      ————-
      1) It seems about right to pay $16.5M to a guy that most project will only pitch about 160-170 innings? I can’t imagine how. You don’t pay #1 money to a guy that gives you #5 innings.

      2) Of course they could’ve. I’ve never disputed that. It would’ve been great if Pavano or Wright could’ve given the Yanks 25 starts a year, compared to the junk they gave us. Still doesn’t mean the Yanks should’ve signed up for a guy that projects to 25 starts a year though.

    9. Raf
      December 19th, 2008 | 11:48 am

      1) It seems about right to pay $16.5M to a guy that most project will only pitch about 160-170 innings? I can’t imagine how. You don’t pay #1 money to a guy that gives you #5 innings.
      ———–
      Kick around Cots baseball contracts for a while.

      Like I said, Burnett made $12M last year when he opted out. The Jays offered him arbitration. Had he accepted, he would’ve made more than $12M. Shopping his services around (IIRC, Yanks Braves, O’s & Jays were interested), he got $16.5. That’s just the way baseball economics work.

      2) Of course they could’ve. I’ve never disputed that. It would’ve been great if Pavano or Wright could’ve given the Yanks 25 starts a year, compared to the junk they gave us. Still doesn’t mean the Yanks should’ve signed up for a guy that projects to 25 starts a year though.
      ———
      Even if Pavano & Wright started those games, they’re still junk. There was no justification to sign either. Pavano had a “good” year that defied his peripherals, Wright had a “good” year that came out of the blue.

      Regardless, given the options, it was better to go after Burnett, than say Garland, Lowe & Co. It’s only money, and the development of Hughes, Kennedy & Chamberlain isn’t hampered.

      If the kids come through, they will pitch for the Yanks. If the vets bomb, they will be gone. It’s win-win for the organization. Burnett’s signing has nothing to do with the Yanks not pursuing a bad, as shown elsewhere, they have about $20M+ to play with; enough to land Manny, Tex, Giambi, Dunn or Abreu.

    10. butchie22
      December 19th, 2008 | 3:21 pm

      Raf, Pavano wasn’t junk when they signed him he had a year that was eerily similar to Burnit’s numbers last year. In addition, Pavano had actually pitched in the post season with the Marlins whereas Burnit has never pitched a big game. I have always diasgreed with you assessment with Pavano because of the AJ factor. Pavano was courted by tons of teams, Burnit two. Why? According to Sweeney Murty, teams where worried aboutv their durability. Burnit might have better stuff but has been on the DL 11 times in 8 years etc so on so forth. If anything, Burnit will be another Pavano or Wright based upon his past. HIs ERA was what ? Almost five if you subtract Boston and the NYYS. The fact that the Yanks who have been a seemingly eternal playoff team have no sample size on the former Fish/ Blue Bird pitcher’s playoff career is a turnoff as well. At least, CC has some kind of sample( he is not that great in October!).

      Cito Gaston’s opinion? Look, he’s won two World Series so he knows a little something about the game. He’s forgot more baseball than we’ll ever know. When you watch arguably the best pitcher in baseball, Halladay, and his number two for more than half the season he has a good idea of what the problems are with his players. AS I’ve said before , Burnit has a 10 cent head, no heart and million dollar talent. Woe to he who expects him to not be an underachieving, injury prone trash talker.

    11. Raf
      December 19th, 2008 | 9:54 pm

      I really think you need to look at Pavanos numbers after the 2004 season. There was no way he could have repeated that season, his peripherals werent all that good.

      Burnett, OTOH, his numbers behind the numbers were very strong.

      Who cares if Pavano pitched in the postseason. Many pitchers have pitched in the postseason, with varying results. Some do well, some dont. If Cashman signed Pavano because of his work during the 2003 postseason, then he should be smacked.

      As for Cito, I stand behind my statement, mainly because Burnetts numbers don;t back up his or your claims. Managers, and players are good at hyperbole, and the numbers usually disagree with them. Doesn;t stop them from saying what they do, unfortunately.

      Fact of the matter is, as injury prone as Burnett is, he gives you above average innings. As injury prone as Pavano is, he will give you crap innings. It is clear looking at his career numbers that 2004 was an outlier. All the analysis said so at the time, FWIW.

      I dont know why you insist on calling him an underachiever, he has posted ERAs better than the league average. That hes a trashtalker is unimportant. Irrelevant.

    Leave a reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.