Igawa was signed to be a back of the rotation starter. He was never expected to be an ace or anything like the sort.

Run a search on the Igawa comments here. He was a perfectly reasonable signing at the time.

As for Pavano, his numbers pointed to his 2004 season being a fluke. His peripherals showed that his 2004 season was not sustainable.

I do realize that the Pavano and Wright signings were panic moves, but at the time, there little reason to expect that they’d be able to replicate their 2004 seasons. And they botched the Lieber contract.

Raf, a couple of points;

Finding a way to win: you mentioned some the factors that go into the pitcher winning a game and of course your right; that’s the point, a quality pitcher can work through all that. Coming to the Yankees Vazquez was 64-68, his record five years later, 127-129.

Pavano was a poor signing in hindsight but go back and look at two things, the Yankees starting pitching going into the 2004 winter meetings,and Pavano’s record with Florida. The Yankees desperately needed a third starter and he was coming off a quality season and had pitched effectively in the 2003 post season.

Igawa was not a good signing. You mentioned in your discussion of Weaver newspaper stories at the time, well fine, look at the information that was available in the papers on Igawa, at best the prognosis was tepid. Michael Kay had a scout on who felt Igawa might not have enough talent to hold a major league roster position. On top of that he cost 46 million! So this is what we have, a pithcer who had never spent a day in American professional baseball, who had been in decline in Japan and costing 46 million. It’s a hard sell to call that a good signing.

Pavano was a stupid signing, by any metric, that a gazillion teams wanted him, speaks to their inability to gauge talent. Igawa and Weaver were reasonable acquisitions.

And the pressure cooker argument is media driven bs.

Mate, that’s a great BUT you don’t trade someone who can play in the cooker pressure of Yankee Stadium for a kid that never pitched a big game and played on a terrible team. Common wisdom said that Johnson was a no brainer and look at what happened there. Vasquez looked like a better deal than the aging Schilling(both teams wanted Vasquez and the Red Sox got Schill).It’s nice that it looked good at the time…..then Boston reverses the Curse that year!No offense but whatever happened initially is wholy irrelevant in my opinion. A gazillion teams wanted Pavano(with the Red Sox offering him more than the Yanks BTW) but the Yanks got him. How did he do? He’s now part of the unholy trinity of Igawa,Weaver and Pavano! There are other people that belong in that mix,but those are Cash Man’s biggest flops.

And actually it seemed like a stupid idea at the time to get rid of Lilly(who could actually pitch in NYC) for Weaver who never pitched a big game in his life.To add insult to injury, Weaver pitched in Comerica(which was the ultimate pitcher’s park at that time) and he pitched under absolutely no pressure on a terrible team.
————
I’d like you to run a search on articles from when the Weaver trade was made. There was hardly (if any) a bad word said about it.

I fail to see how it is a bad move by Cashman to get Vazquez. The fact that he didn’t turn out as expected wasn’t his fault. There was no reason to believe his best days were behind him.

You certainly can fault Cashman for trading him for a useless RJ though.

Same thing with Weaver. It was a good trade when it was made. Just because Weaver has the mentality of a four-year old doesn’t mean that when the trade was made it wasn’t a good one.

Again the problem was the poor trade they made to get rid of him.

It’s important to make bold moves like the Vazquez and Weaver deals. It’s also important not to make irrational moves for broken down pitchers.
Quote from Rob

Rob, no offense but you are totally missing the point. Pavano was courted by a gazillion teams and how did that work out? It seemed like it was a good idea at that time is weak when the Red Pox have picked up and drafted pitchers that have lead them to World Series’ titles in two years. You can’t afford to have that” it seemed it was a good idea at the time” attitude when other teams PICK the right pitchers AND WIN!!! And actually it seemed like a stupid idea at the time to get rid of Lilly(who could actually pitch in NYC) for Weaver who never pitched a big game in his life.To add insult to injury, Weaver pitched in Comerica(which was the ultimate pitcher’s park at that time) and he pitched under absolutely no pressure on a terrible team. Then again it goes back to the so-called architect of the team, the Brainless one: Cash Man.

Cash Man has this penchant for signing bad pitching free agents. Burnit is the next iun line.There is a certain type of pitcher that can pitch in NY and Cash Man has picked a bunch that can’t! Yesterday I saw a line by a Toronto beat reporter and a Yankee reporter to each other. It was something to the effect of that is nasty and cold(personality wise). They are basically bringing back Brown and Pavano in one package. Can’t wait to see if he crumbles , what the aftermath will be? It will be very amusing and entertaining to say I told you so…….

The expression “finding a way to win”, doesn’t resonate in their game plan and I can’t explain why.
—–
I can…

Because a pitcher doesn’t control things like defense, run support, and bullpen work. Wins don’t show how effective a pitcher was/is.

~~There’s a pretty cool clip of Moe Howard doing the Niagara Falls bit.~~

The Moe clip was a tad annoying since it was on auto-play…so, I switched it. I like the Lou one better…I grew up on that one.

I don’t like pitchers with losing records and I don’t care that they may have played for teams with losing records. The expression “finding a way to win”, doesn’t resonate in their game plan and I can’t explain why. There are exceptions, but to me the won loss record of the pitcher is the best indicator of what you will get over the long haul.

In the case of Weaver, I heard an interview with Gene Michael at the time of the trade and he gave a glowing report, so I blame Gene more than Cashman for overrating Weaver.

I can’t question either Pavano or Johnson, Pavano looked like a good sign, and Johnson was addition by subtraction (Vazquez). What I didn’t like about the Johnson deal was losing Navarro, I also didn’t know what to think about picking up a pitcher north of 40 and expecting him to be your ace.

Igawa made no sense whatsoever, the reports on him were not good. Igawa was projected at best to be an end of the rotation guy, to me he sounded like a type you could pick up off waivers. Why would you go out a pick up someone like that and pay 46 million.

I fail to see how it is a bad move by Cashman to get Vazquez. The fact that he didn’t turn out as expected wasn’t his fault. There was no reason to believe his best days were behind him.

You certainly can fault Cashman for trading him for a useless RJ though.

Same thing with Weaver. It was a good trade when it was made. Just because Weaver has the mentality of a four-year old doesn’t mean that when the trade was made it wasn’t a good one.

Again the problem was the poor trade they made to get rid of him.

It’s important to make bold moves like the Vazquez and Weaver deals. It’s also important not to make irrational moves for broken down pitchers.