WasWatching.com Water Cooler Talk 7/14/09
Posted by Steve L. on July 14th, 2009 · Comments (28)
Click here for more information about this entry.
Comments on WasWatching.com Water Cooler Talk 7/14/09
Leave a reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I’m back from vacation. What did I miss? Did you guys take care of the Yanks for me like I asked?
Quick thought..Any chance MO passes Hoffman one day? MO still looks great and The Hoff is pitching..effectively..into his mid 40s.
@ clintfsu813:
i’m not sure it even matters, mo is the greatest and everyone knows it.
does anyone else hate the ASB as much as i do? worst week of the summer
o also, not sure how many people read drunk jays fans around here but he had a post that made me laugh out loud that i thought i’d share since it’s dead without baseball…
note if you find you are sensative to hitler jokes, proceed with caution (it’s not bad at all, but you know how sensative people get)
http://www.drunkjaysfans.com/2009/07/angry-hitler-has-lost-hope-for-jays.html
absolutely hysterical.
MJ wrote:
They were fine up until the Angels series.
I’ve been having this discussion @ Bronx Banter, and I’ll open it up to the floor.
If I have a player that posts the following line .315-41-133, .412/.595 (1.007), does it matter whether this player was developed, acquired in a trade (salary dump or otherwise), or signed as a free agent?
I’m arguing that it shouldn’t matter, but others assign extra credit for the player being developed from within. To me, that doesn’t make any sense. Production is production, whether it’s homegrown or from the outside.
Raf,
It matters to teams that have a budget, and won’t ever spend 200 million on payroll. If you develop a player like that, and have cost control or a decent contract like the one Pedroia or Youkilis signed, developing that player represents more money that can be spent for, say, adding a Doc Holladay.
The Yankees are the one team that doesn’t operate under such restrictions and therefore it really doesn’t matter if such a player is homegrown or from the outside.
@ Raf:
i find that it’s a lot more fun, and easier to root for, a guy who is home grown and puts up numbers vs a free agent signing. Plus, then people can’t talk about how we buy all the players and we have a team of mercs (altho it’s been fine recently), which gets on my nerves. But, other than that, it’s the same.
@Raf
I would find it more satisfying to develop a young stud and have him in his prime 24-28/29 years, cost-controlled, rather than being the team that has routinely overpaid for the same guys in their 30-36 declining years. Exactly why I don’t want the Yanks to give another large contract to Matt Holliday this offseason.
That’s what we and some teams have to do at times to patch the holes until you can develop your own talent. As the Yanks we can afford it, but it would be nice to slowly start to move away from those contracts when our farm system catches up to the rest of the pack in top-flight talent.
Once we can routinely develop our stars, and break the bank only when we have to, then the Yanks will be in good shape. Basically, exactly where the Red Sox are now (puke).
“Does it matter whether this player was developed, acquired in a trade (salary dump or otherwise), or signed as a free agent?”
I see the point about saving $, etc., when the player was developed – and there is an element of enjoyment in watching a young player come up and grow into a star before your own eyes.
That said, for me, in the end, it doesn’t matter “whether this player was developed, acquired in a trade (salary dump or otherwise), or signed as a free agent?” as long as I like the way the player goes about his business and performs in big spots.
Corey wrote:
Does Tom Verducci have that man crash on Trev Hoffman? Despite 97, 01, 04 Mariano is in a class by himself.
Corey wrote:
There is a point of pride in having developed a player that has those stats. For example, who is more beloved St Derek OR Aroid? Mo,Posada or the rest of the current free agent aquisitions? It also shows that your organization can develop players as opposed to just buying them. Is it the same? NOt quite in that in reference to the Yankees, because the argument becomes they don’t developed their own develop productive players.And it happens to be one of the major criticisms of Cash Man’s existence because where he has a hole, he spends more money to fill it as opposed to building from within…….
Ultimately, it is an issue of context if anything Raf. But because the Yankees are literally the 200 million dollar gorilla on the block. If Cash Man doesn’t develop go out and buy a player. BUT if he is able to develop one, it is a testament to his newly found(as of 2005) build from within ideal for the Yankees.
Raf wrote:
Why, what happened against the Angels?
It was a replay of the 2002 ALDS.
Raf wrote:
I don’t see why it matters. I agree that it might be “more fun” to develop that kind of player but it doesn’t really matter at the end of the day. Production is production. The A’s didn’t get any further than the Yanks did with Jason Giambi so I don’t see why they’d get “extra credit” for having developed him.
@ OnceIWasAYankeeFan:
Manny, Youk & Ortiz are loved in Boston (maybe not Manny anymore) despite entering the organization in different ways. Which speaks to my point that it doesn’t matter. The Red Sox don’t get “extra credit” for Youk and Pedroia.
Corey wrote:
People have been saying that since the beginning. Babe Ruth was a salary dump. Joe DiMaggio was bought from the SF Seals. Before the draft, players were scouted and bought off the sandlots or whatever pro leagues existed.
Steve Lombardi wrote:
Which is my point. If you like a player for those reasons, it shouldn’t matter how the player was acquired. 3 of my favorite Yankees, Rickey, Winnie and Donnie entered the organization 3 different ways.
It was a replay of the 2002 ALDS.
—–
I’m glad I was on vacation. I didn’t turn on the TV or check the internet in my 5 days away. Sounds like I didn’t miss anything at all.
MJ wrote:
ya, it was pretty horrible
Raf wrote:
Exactly…it’s easy to forget because they gained “True Yankee” status, but neither Paulie or Tino were developed by the team and they’re probably two of the most beloved Yankees in the past 25 years.
I like a team with a good mix — a strong homegrown core garnished with well-selected incomers. Even when they’re not the most expensive superstars they can add something cool. Who would have wanted to miss Brosius ‘the claw’ at third just because he was whelped elsewhere? And so on through the obvious others from the past, and some of the incomers from the present … like Teixera for example …
Anyway I want to have my cake and eat it too.
Normal NYY fan I guess.
@ cr1:
I agree..I enjoy having a mix of signed veterans and developed players, which I believe we have now. I just wish we could bring it together and start kickin some serious butt like I think we’re capable of doing.
bfriley76 wrote:
Neither were Brosius, Stanton, Nelson, Cone, Clemens, Wells, Key, Duncan, Knoblauch, Raines, Strawberry, Gooden, Girardi or Chad Curtis.
“True Yankee” status is defined by winning titles, or so it is said.
Unless you’re Don Mattingly.
cr1 wrote:
That’s something else I’m having a bit of a hard time understanding, what exactly constitutes a “homegrown core”
Jeter received his opportunity when Tony Fernandez missed a season with a broken elbow. Bernie Williams was already established in CF. Posada was there, but he didn’t become a full-time starter until 1998. Rivera emerged late in the 95 season, and wasn’t even the first option out of the pen when the 96 season started. Pettitte came up in 1995.
The Yanks started making noise in 1993, when they were chasing the Jays for much of the season. Of the primary 9 starters, only 3 were developed; Donnie, Bernie and Pat Kelly. On the pitching staff, you had Scott Kamieniecki and Bobby Muñoz, unless you want to count Wickman and Jean who were acquired from the White Sox. Probably not, since we’re talking about primary players. I don’t think a core would (or even should) consist of bench players
1994 saw the same in the lineup, and Kamie the lone holdover (Muñoz was traded for Muholland) on the staff.
1995 saw the same in the lineup, with Kamie joined by Sterling Hitchcock and Andy Pettitte.
1996 saw Donnie and Kelly swapped out, Jeter and Gerald Williams swapped in. Jeter and the two Williams. Kamie and Sterling are gone, so pitching has Pettitte, Ramiro Mendoza and some guy named Mo.
1997 has Gerald gone, so it’s Jeter and Bernie in the field, Pettitte, Mo, and Mendoza on the staff.
At this point, Jeter has been there for 2 years, Bernie for 6, Pettitte & Mo for 3, Mendoza for 2. Would it be accurate to say that this is your homegrown core?
1998 adds Posada, so we have Jeter, Bernie and Posada in the field. On the mound we have Pettitte, Mo & Mendoza
1999 sees Ledee added to Jeter, Bernie and Posada. On the mound, the same 3 pitchers remain.
2000 has Shane Spencer added to Ledee and Co.
So as of 2000, we have Jeter & Mendoza (5), Bernie (9), Posada (3), Pettitte & Rivera (6) as your “homegrown core.” Is that accurate? A third of the lineup, and a third of the pitching staff?
Or should it be Jeter, Mendoza, Bernie, Pettitte and Rivera? Since Posada didn’t become a starter until the winning happened. Or maybe Bernie & Pettitte, since they were there before the winning started?
I’d like to hear your opinions on this.
Raf, just to throw a twist into your question, Posada actually didn’t become a full-time starter until 2000 when Girardi was sent packing. In ’98 and ’99 he was still sharing time, a little over 100 games behind the plate and 400 PAs in each of those years. In ’99, he actually only appeared in 20 more games than Ledee did.
As for the young core through the 90s, I always put Jeter, Posada, Bernieand Pettitte into that mix. All other parts, be it pitchers or fielders, surrounded that core.
Thanks Raf for helping out my memory of 2000.
Raf wrote:
So as of 2000, we have Jeter & Mendoza (5), Bernie (9), Posada (3), Pettitte & Rivera (6) as your “homegrown core.” Is that accurate? A third of the lineup, and a third of the pitching staff?
Yes I would have accepted that list so I guess I’d have to say that I was happy with a team that was one third home-grown.
And giving it a little more thought I wonder whether having homegrown players in conspicuous positions (like catcher, shortstop, closer) maybe contributes to giving a homegrown flavor greater than just numbers might convey?
The thread that started all this