• Rain To Make Yanks Season Land On Gaudin’s Wing?

    Posted by on October 15th, 2009 · Comments (51)

    The Yankees plan to start CC Sabathia in Game 1 and A.J. Burnett in Game 2 of the 2009 ALCS. A potential rainout of either of these games would likely force them to use a fourth starter, since Andy Pettitte is scheduled to pitch Game 3, setting up Joba Chamberlain or Chad Gaudin to pitch Game 4 at Anaheim.

    Anyone paying attention lately knows that it’s not going to be Joba Chamberlain and most likely will be Chad Gaudin.

    Now, if the Yankees win the first three games of the ALCS, this probably is not an issue – because if Gaudin tanks, at the worst, you’re still up, three games to one, with three to play. (Sure, we remember the “2004 ALCS situation” – but, having CC Sabathia ready to pitch Game 5 should ease that concern.)

    But, if the Yankees are not up, three-oh, by Game 4, then starting Chad Gaudin has all sorts of risk tied to it.

    If the Yankees are down, three-oh, do you really want your season riding on the arm of Gaudin?

    If the Yankees are down, two games to one, do you really want to start Gaudin and risk being down, three games to one, after that start – and then be forced to win the next two in a row or go home?

    Heck, even if you’re up, two games to one, do you want to start Gaudin and then maybe find yourself in a spot where the series is tied at two (assuming you lose Game 4) – and then have the series turn into a best two out of three?

    Of course, maybe Chad Gaudin starts Game 4 and is a hero – throwing six shutout innings. Anything is possible. But, is it likely?

    In the end, if this ALCS comes down to the Yankees starting Gaudin in Game 4 – and him costing them the game and maybe the ALCS, many will blame it on the rain. But, is that fair? If the Yankees had a fourth starter they could trust, then none of this would be an issue right?

    Comments on Rain To Make Yanks Season Land On Gaudin’s Wing?

    1. MJ
      October 15th, 2009 | 11:34 am

      If the Yankees had a fourth starter they could trust, then none of this would be an issue right?
      ———–
      They did, and his name was Andy Pettitte. Remember, Chien-Ming Wang was supposed to be the 2nd starter on this team in 2009. Chien-Ming Wang was the guy who, coming into 2009, sported a career record/ERA/WHIP of 54-20/3.79/1.29.

      Wang’s abrupt implosion this year was overlooked because the team had such a great year but it appears like his absence will come back to bite the team in the ass when it matters most.

      It’s unfortunate that bad weather will force the Yanks to pitch pieces of crap like Gaudin or #62 but I guess that’s just how it goes. Definitely makes the Yanks momentum seem like it just got blunted by an Act of God, and that sucks.

      Hopefully, however, the Yanks are up 2-1 in the series and the lineup pulls extra weight in order to make Gaudin’s/#62′s role moot.

    2. YankCrank
      October 15th, 2009 | 11:48 am

      I wouldn’t exactly look at this as such a terrible predicament. If CC and AJ can be adequate enough in games 1 and 2 to where only Coke, Robertson, Marte, Hughes, Joba and Rivera pitch we’d be able to let Gaudin, Aceves and Joba get most of the innings for a game 4.

      Let Gaudin start, first sign of serious trouble go to Aceves for 2-3 innings then Joba for 2 innings if you need it. Is it ideal? No, i’m sure we’d much rather have kazmir for game 4, but we need to remember that with Aceves and Joba on the roster we don’t need to depened on Gaudin for a quality start. Even 3 innings of 2 runs or less would be enough to get to the next guy down the line.

    3. YankCrank
      October 15th, 2009 | 11:50 am

      This is a damn good team guys, we played .700 ball for months with guys like Mitre and Gaudin taking the hill…we can fill holes if needed and still come out on top.

    4. October 15th, 2009 | 11:52 am

      @ MJ:
      Fair point on #46 being the #4 guy because of #40…BUT…

      ..when #40 went down, and Pettitte became #3, the Yankees had a chance to go out and get a 4th starter (Cliff Lee, cough, cough) but, the only move their GM elected to do was to acquire Chad Gaudin. So, if the season goes down in flames because the Yanks are in a semi-or-full-blown must win situation in Game 4 of the ALCS, and Gaudin is the only starter, sure, you can blame it on the injury to Wang – - or, you can also blame it on the GM not making a move to offset the loss of Wang, no?

    5. October 15th, 2009 | 11:53 am

      @ YankCrank: Were you playing the Angels everyday in those months with Mitre and Gaudin starting?

    6. MJ
      October 15th, 2009 | 12:03 pm

      YankCrank wrote:

      we’d be able to let Gaudin, Aceves and Joba get most of the innings for a game 4.

      That doesn’t scare you? That scares the hell out of me. We’re talking about Gaudin here, not someone good. #62 freakin’ stinks and although I love Ace, he hasn’t been lights out since July.

    7. YankCrank
      October 15th, 2009 | 12:05 pm

      Steve Lombardi wrote:

      @ YankCrank: Were you playing the Angels everyday in those months with Mitre and Gaudin starting?

      No, but on 9/22 Chad gave us 4.2 innings of 2 run ball at the said Angels, in Anaheim. I’d sign up for that in a second if he had to pitch game 4.

      Look at what I said. Would we rather have a pitcher of Kazmir’s quality? Of course. But we don’t need that. All Gaudin needs to do is pitch 2-3 quality innings and not implode, then Aceves and Joba can clean up, something they’ve done multiple times this season with success (Aceves more than Joba).

      With that in mind, all Yankee fans can step back from the ledge and not feel doomed. We’re a damn good team, so let’s sit back and see where the series is even at for game 4.

      As for going after Lee, if we look at the package of what we had to give up for just Jarrod Washburn (terrible pitcher), which was Austin Jackson, we would have had send a lot over to Cleveland for Lee. I’m not comfortable giving up Jackson and Montero for a lefty who will be a free agent in a year.

    8. yagottagotomo1
      October 15th, 2009 | 12:06 pm

      Go compare Joba’s numbers to those of Joe Saunders and Scott Kazmir. They are very similar. In fact Joba and Kazmir are practically identical. It isn’t the GM’s fault that the manager would rather Joba pitch the 7th inning.

    9. YankCrank
      October 15th, 2009 | 12:07 pm

      MJ wrote:

      That doesn’t scare you?

      What would scare me is if we need Chad to pitch if we’re down 3-0 or 2-1, just because if you’re down in a series you want a reliable pitcher and I think we can all agree Chad isn’t our ace.. Other than that, I think we’ll be ok. We’re a good team and the Angels haven’t scared me all year.

    10. MJ
      October 15th, 2009 | 12:08 pm

      Steve Lombardi wrote:

      the Yankees had a chance to go out and get a 4th starter (Cliff Lee, cough, cough)

      The Phillies traded their #2 (Carlos Carrasco; RHP), #3 (Lou Marson; C), #4 (Jason Donald; SS) and #10 prospects (Jason Knapp; RHP), as ranked by Baseball America in January 2009.

      For the Yanks to put together a similar package based on the same numerical rankings by Baseball America, that would’ve included Jesus Montero, Andrew Brackman, Austin Romine and Brad Suttle.

      First of all, Brackman’s not getting any deal done right now. Second of all, that’s WAY too much to pay for Cliff Lee, given that Montero is a likely top-10 prospect in Baseball America’s Top-100 list coming out in February 2010.

      If you think the Yanks could’ve gotten Lee, you’re joking. The cost would’ve been prohibitive.

    11. MJ
      October 15th, 2009 | 12:13 pm

      yagottagotomo1 wrote:

      Go compare Joba’s numbers to those of Joe Saunders and Scott Kazmir. They are very similar. In fact Joba and Kazmir are practically identical. It isn’t the GM’s fault that the manager would rather Joba pitch the 7th inning.

      At this point, the decision to pitch #62 in the 7th inning is warranted. He’s pitched to a 5.40 ERA /1.52 WHIPin the 2nd half and hasn’t provided any sort of consistency or reliability.

    12. MJ
      October 15th, 2009 | 12:15 pm

      @ YankCrank:
      Hey, I’m the one that felt we matched up better against Anaheim anyway. I know what we’re capable of and I know we’re a good team. But I also liked the idea of not having to go to a starter-by-committee scenario in the playoffs. That’s not exactly the greatest sign of health or confidence in our choices.

      Do I think the Yanks can win this series even if Gaudin/#62 start? Sure. But I think it’s far more likely that we’ll be tied 2-2 after Game 4 as a result.

    13. yagottagotomo1
      October 15th, 2009 | 12:16 pm

      MJ wrote:

      At this point, the decision to pitch #62 in the 7th inning is warranted. He’s pitched to a 5.40 ERA /1.52 WHIPin the 2nd half and hasn’t provided any sort of consistency or reliability.

      And yet his numbers are equal to Kazmir’s and Saunders’. People have crazy expectations regarding a 4th starter. Gaudin in NY has been better than all 3 of them. If he can give 4-5 innings of 2-3 run ball, that should be fine.

    14. bfriley76
      October 15th, 2009 | 12:17 pm

      Steve Lombardi wrote:

      @ MJ:
      Fair point on #46 being the #4 guy because of #40…BUT…
      ..when #40 went down, and Pettitte became #3, the Yankees had a chance to go out and get a 4th starter (Cliff Lee, cough, cough) but, the only move their GM elected to do was to acquire Chad Gaudin. So, if the season goes down in flames because the Yanks are in a semi-or-full-blown must win situation in Game 4 of the ALCS, and Gaudin is the only starter, sure, you can blame it on the injury to Wang – – or, you can also blame it on the GM not making a move to offset the loss of Wang, no?

      On July 24, Jon Heyman reported that the Yankees were looking at Lee, and that “the Indians are asking for either starter-turned-reliever Phil Hughes or reliever-turned-starter Joba Chamberlain.”
      Would you have given that up for Lee at that point in the season? Hughes, had already been converted to relief and had pitched just over 24 innings in that role to an ERA of 0.74 and Joba had just reeled off his second impressive start after the all-star break spent “figuring it out.” Now hindsight is 20/20 and we all know how Joba finished the season, but would you have given either of them up to get Lee?

    15. MJ
      October 15th, 2009 | 12:20 pm

      2009 stats:

      SK: 147.1 IP, 93 ERA+
      JS: 186 IP, 99 ERA+
      CG: 147.1 IP, 85 ERA+

      Saunders has been the best of the bunch.

    16. MJ
      October 15th, 2009 | 12:22 pm

      bfriley76 wrote:

      Now hindsight is 20/20 and we all know how Joba finished the season, but would you have given either of them up to get Lee?

      Obviously it wouldn’t have been a straight-up one-for-one deal…but if it had, YES, ABSOLUTELY I’d have traded #62 to Cleveland for Clilff Lee in a one-for-one deal.

      #62 is cost-controlled but the Yanks can afford to pay Cliff Lee’s $10M salary given how dominant he’s been over the past few seasons.

      But, again, I highly doubt that Cleveland would’ve done it in a one-for-one scenario.

    17. bfriley76
      October 15th, 2009 | 12:25 pm

      MJ wrote:

      bfriley76 wrote:
      Now hindsight is 20/20 and we all know how Joba finished the season, but would you have given either of them up to get Lee?
      Obviously it wouldn’t have been a straight-up one-for-one deal…but if it had, YES, ABSOLUTELY I’d have traded #62 to Cleveland for Clilff Lee in a one-for-one deal.
      #62 is cost-controlled but the Yanks can afford to pay Cliff Lee’s $10M salary given how dominant he’s been over the past few seasons.
      But, again, I highly doubt that Cleveland would’ve done it in a one-for-one scenario.

      MJ…I’m SHOCKED you’d be willing to trade Joba :)

      I was assuming that they were the starting point for the package, not the whole deal, especially considering the number of players the Indians ended up getting from Philadelphia, but yes, the scenario is different it’s a one-for-one exchange.

    18. YankCrank
      October 15th, 2009 | 12:26 pm

      MJ wrote:

      Obviously it wouldn’t have been a straight-up one-for-one deal…but if it had, YES, ABSOLUTELY I’d have traded #62 to Cleveland for Clilff Lee in a one-for-one deal.

      I disagree. I would have passed.

      Cliff Lee will be a free agent in a year. The Yankees aren’t hurting for pitching so bad that they NEED Cliff Lee. Keep Joba, let him either develop into a good starter or a good reliever and if we want Cliff Lee so bad, buy him after 2010.

    19. yagottagotomo1
      October 15th, 2009 | 12:28 pm

      MJ wrote:

      2009 stats:

      SK: 147.1 IP, 93 ERA+
      JS: 186 IP, 99 ERA+
      CG: 147.1 IP, 85 ERA+

      Saunders has been the best of the bunch.

      I said Gaudin in NY, which is obviously a small sample. My point is that it is not like the Yankees are sending out scrubs and the Angels are sending out All Stars.

    20. MJ
      October 15th, 2009 | 12:37 pm

      YankCrank wrote:

      The Yankees aren’t hurting for pitching so bad that they NEED Cliff Lee.

      Debatable. If we assume that the Yanks try to convert Hughes back to the rotation, he’ll be on the same “Rules” schedule that #62 was this year. As such, the Yanks are still short at least one starter, if not two. Cliff Lee, beyond his talent, is also an innings eater. Hard to argue that Sabathia/Lee up front with Burnett/Pettitte behind wouldn’t mitigate Hughes’s growing pains and give the Yanks more tolerance for the inevitable slip-ups that come to Hughes next year.

      Part of the problem this year without Wang is that #62 HAD to pitch in the rotation, even when it was clear that a demotion to Scranton was in his best interest. Why should the Yanks absolutely have to rely on Hughes in the same way?

    21. MJ
      October 15th, 2009 | 12:39 pm

      yagottagotomo1 wrote:

      My point is that it is not like the Yankees are sending out scrubs and the Angels are sending out All Stars.

      And my point is merely that Gaudin (and #62) are scrubs, irrespective of their competition.

    22. butchie22
      October 15th, 2009 | 12:51 pm

      This maelstrom concerning a possible 4th starter is quite amusing. I remember when Corey and I joked around about that possibility happening….and now it might. Yes on a high payroll,high expectation team the SP should have been 6 starters deep BUT that plan wasn’t enacted by the GM. Look, it’s terrible that they might have to go to Gaudin but the milk is spilled right now.

      @ Crank, regarding Cliff Lee who knows what will happen with him. He just might stay in Philly. BUT is it smart to give up a player(62) that is cost controllable and potentially a damn good starting pitcher down the line for Lee? I think not and 62 wouldn’t have been the only piece the Indians would have extracted from the Yanks ,trust me! In essence, CRank we agree in keeping Joba the Hut!

      @ MJ Joba is not a scrub(at least in relief) however Gaudin is a semi-scrub at best. I understand your point completely though. Can you imagine if the Yankees make it to the World Series, that will be a further mindf&*k. Can you see Gaudin in the 4th game then? One of my brothers said not only is that possible/probable, but that’s what’s going to happen. The lack of depth will rear its ugly head but what is the alternative,now?

    23. YankCrank
      October 15th, 2009 | 12:53 pm

      MJ wrote:

      Why should the Yanks absolutely have to rely on Hughes in the same way?

      I think you make a very good point in a lot of ways. CC/Lee at the top would be incredible, Joba DEFINITELY would have benefitted from a demotion and relying on Hughes the same way isn’t ideal. None of those can be debated.

      I tend to look at the deal in that, if we wanted to acquire Lee, we would have had to lose a Hughes or Joba along with other good parts, including (most likely) a Jesus Montero. With that in mind, i’d hate to give up on a Hughes or Joba, along with other big prospects for a guy we’ll only control for one year.

      I’d rather keep Joba or Hughes, Montero and others and use our advantage ($) when Lee is a free agent. It always come down to that when I think of Yankee deals. Why trade away good pieces for a player we want when, in one year, we can just use our advantage and buy that same player?

    24. YankCrank
      October 15th, 2009 | 12:59 pm

      butchie22 wrote:

      CRank we agree in keeping Joba the Hut!

      I never thought i’d see the day! :)

    25. October 15th, 2009 | 1:04 pm

      FWIW, don’t let this all focus on the call to obtain or pass on Cliff Lee. There were other fish to be caught at the time it became clear that Wang was cooked. They could have signed Pedro Martinez. They could have made a block-buster for Doc Halladay. Who knows what other deals were out there? The fact of the matter is that Cashman chose to pull the trigger on a deal for Gaudin and did not elect to pull it on whatever other pitchers were available, albeit Lee, Pedro, Doc, whomever. So, in the end, Chad Gaudin was Cashman’s answer to Wang going down. And, now, perhaps, that choice COULD, MAYBE, be the reason why the Yankees make it to the World Series or not…interesting, huh?

    26. October 15th, 2009 | 1:05 pm

      Well, it was his call to go with Gaudin – and Mitre too – let’s not forget that one.

    27. MJ
      October 15th, 2009 | 1:46 pm

      YankCrank wrote:

      I tend to look at the deal in that, if we wanted to acquire Lee, we would have had to lose a Hughes or Joba along with other good parts, including (most likely) a Jesus Montero. With that in mind, i’d hate to give up on a Hughes or Joba, along with other big prospects for a guy we’ll only control for one year.

      I agree with you 100% that the Yanks were right not to trade for Cliff Lee if we’d have to put together a multi-player deal as the Phils did. The specific question was whether or not I’d trade #62 for Lee straight up and my answer is yes. If we’re talking 1-for-1, the Yanks can easily afford to lose #62 for a better pitcher. If the Yanks had to give up #62 plus the rest of the farm system then obviously that’s a different argument.

    28. MJ
      October 15th, 2009 | 1:53 pm

      Steve Lombardi wrote:

      They could have signed Pedro Martinez. They could have made a block-buster for Doc Halladay.

      HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, seriously, I just pissed myself laughing at the idea that the Yanks would sign Pedro and you would praise Cashman for that. Are you seriously playing the other side of the coin now? Pedro was a washed-up AL pitcher when he left the AL nearly a half-decade ago. The fact that he pitched reasonably well for the Phils tells you that the NL is the AL’s weak little step-sister. As much as Gaudin isn’t a first-ballot Hall of Famer like Pedro is and as much as Gaudin is a scrub, it was still reasonable to expect that Gaudin would be no worse than Pedro, given how decrepit Pedro looked in 2007 and 2008.

      As for Halladay, the Blue Jays rejected offers from Boston that included players such as Buchholz, Masterson, Hagadone and Westmoreland. What makes you think the Yanks could’ve topped that?

    29. October 15th, 2009 | 1:57 pm

      @ MJ:Given what we’ve seen from both pitchers this season and over their career, who would you rather have starting Game 4 of the ALCS for the Yankees: Pedro or Gaudin?

    30. MJ
      October 15th, 2009 | 2:07 pm

      @ Steve Lombardi:
      First, there was no reason to expect Pedro to pitch to a 118 ERA+ this season, given his injury history and age, and how the previous two seasons had gone for him.

      Second, Pedro’s Hall of Fame resume should never enter the equation. The Yanks (or any team, for that matter) shouldn’t sign a player because he was once great. If Cashman didn’t think Pedro could get AL hitters out, he did the right thing by passing, irrespective of *who* Pedro is and where he ranks on the list of great players. The fact that several other AL teams in need of starting pitching help passed on Pedro — a guy that was pretty much willing to pitch for peanuts this year — tells me that most AL GM’s didn’t think his stuff would play in the superior offensive league.

    31. MJ
      October 15th, 2009 | 2:08 pm

      MJ wrote:

      @ Steve Lombardi:
      First, there was no reason to expect Pedro to pitch to a 118 ERA+ this season, given his injury history and age, and how the previous two seasons had gone for him.

      Might I add to clarify that Pedro only pitched 44 innings this year so that ERA+ is skewed by a fairly small sample size.

    32. YankCrank
      October 15th, 2009 | 2:09 pm

      MJ wrote:

      The specific question was whether or not I’d trade #62 for Lee straight up and my answer is yes.

      Now I see what you’re saying. Sorry, we were on the wrong page.

      In that case, it would be extremely difficult to not make that deal. If I made it though, i’d want to negotiate a new deal with Lee. No new deal, no Lee.

    33. MJ
      October 15th, 2009 | 2:11 pm

      YankCrank wrote:

      In that case, it would be extremely difficult to not make that deal. If I made it though, i’d want to negotiate a new deal with Lee. No new deal, no Lee.

      Agreed. You don’t trade a cost-controlled asset for a guy that can walk away without the assurance that he’ll stick around for longer than the one season you’re renting him for.

      Alas, it’s a moot point because there was no way the Indians would’ve traded Lee for #62 straight-up. I swear, I’d have driven him to Jacobs Field myself if that were the case.

    34. YankCrank
      October 15th, 2009 | 2:32 pm

      MJ wrote:

      I’d have driven him to Jacobs Field myself if that were the case.

      Haha I bet, but would you have ponied up for the White Castle?

    35. butchie22
      October 15th, 2009 | 2:44 pm

      Steve Lombardi wrote:

      FWIW, don’t let this all focus on the call to obtain or pass on Cliff Lee. There were other fish to be caught at the time it became clear that Wang was cooked. They could have signed Pedro Martinez. They could have made a block-buster for Doc Halladay. Who knows what other deals were out there? The fact of the matter is that Cashman chose to pull the trigger on a deal for Gaudin and did not elect to pull it on whatever other pitchers were available, albeit Lee, Pedro, Doc, whomever. So, in the end, Chad Gaudin was Cashman’s answer to Wang going down. And, now, perhaps, that choice COULD, MAYBE, be the reason why the Yankees make it to the World Series or not…interesting, huh?

      Steve, I agree with Pedro (the Head Hunte rBUT Doc? according to JP Retardi on the Miked Up show, the Rogers(Toronto Blue Jays Owners) didn’t want to give him up. and especially not to a hated rival like the Yankees or the Red Sox(who were willing to give up a King’s ransom according to MLB Trade Rumors).

      @ MJ, you would rather see Gaudin or Pedro in the 4 spot? Pedro the Head Hunter is not the same pitcher he was in his prime, but I’d rather have him than Gaudin or Mitre hands down! Even in a limited sense of long relief, rather than starting Pedro would have been OK in the AL. The Phillies got him for a decent amount of money and he it wasn’t about giving up talent either. One more thing when was Gaudin ever on Pedro’s level?

    36. Raf
      October 15th, 2009 | 2:46 pm

      Gaudin gets a short leash in game 4. Personally, I would start Joba in game 4 if it came down to it. The Yankees are carrying 11 pitchers, unless the first 3 games go extra innings, or 3 starters get knocked out in 3 consec games, it shouldn’t be a problem.

    37. MJ
      October 15th, 2009 | 2:49 pm

      YankCrank wrote:

      Haha I bet, but would you have ponied up for the White Castle?

      Are you kidding? For starters, I’d stop calling him #62 and would call him Mr. Chamberlain. Then, I’d make sure we hit every greasy fast-food joint on the drive from NY to Cleveland. Anything he wanted to eat, I’d pay for. It would be the best $850 I ever spent.

    38. butchie22
      October 15th, 2009 | 2:50 pm

      Raf wrote:

      Gaudin gets a short leash in game 4. Personally, I would start Joba in game 4 if it came down to it. The Yankees are carrying 11 pitchers, unless the first 3 games go extra innings, or 3 starters get knocked out in 3 consec games, it shouldn’t be a problem.

      Raf, I really think that the powers that be would rather have Chad the Cad start than Joba. Is Gaudin gonna be on a short leash? Heck yeah,bout just who is the plan B? Aceves, Joba, or Hughes….It was good of you to also take into account the what if scenario regarding extra innings,mate.

    39. butchie22
      October 15th, 2009 | 2:51 pm

      MJ wrote:

      YankCrank wrote:
      Haha I bet, but would you have ponied up for the White Castle?
      Are you kidding? For starters, I’d stop calling him #62 and would call him Mr. Chamberlain. Then, I’d make sure we hit every greasy fast-food joint on the drive from NY to Cleveland. Anything he wanted to eat, I’d pay for. It would be the best $850 I ever spent.

      This is Joba the Hut, maybe $8500 not $850.:)

    40. Raf
      October 15th, 2009 | 2:54 pm

      What really concerns me is Girardi’s tendency to burn through a bullpen. When it comes down to it, there really isn’t any reason Joba, Robertson, Hughes, Aceves or Gaudin should pitch less than an inning unless they’re ineffective. At minimum, they should be able to pitch through the order once.

    41. MJ
      October 15th, 2009 | 2:58 pm

      butchie22 wrote:

      The Phillies got him for a decent amount of money and he it wasn’t about giving up talent either. One more thing when was Gaudin ever on Pedro’s level?

      The Yankees traded cash for Gaudin so Philly’s acquisition of Pedro was the same transaction as the Yanks’ acqusition of Gaudin. Let’s not pretend that the Yanks gave up some monumental piece to get Gaudin when they could’ve had Pedro for free. Both were available “for free” as it were.

      Second, let me repeat: it is irrelevant whether or not Gaudin was ever as good as Pedro. The question should only be whether Gaudin could pitch well going forward. If we must compare Gaudin to Pedro:

      PM (PHI): 44.2 IP, 118 ERA+
      CG (NYY): 42 IP, 130 ERA+ (105.1 IP, 73 ERA+ for SDP)

      I think Gaudin is a scrub and I’m not arguing that he was ever better than Pedro. But in an identical number of innings for the Yanks as Pedro had in Philly, Gaudin outperformed him.

      And again, as I said above:

      “The fact that several other AL teams in need of starting pitching help passed on Pedro — a guy that was pretty much willing to pitch for peanuts this year — tells me that most AL GM’s didn’t think his stuff would play in the superior offensive league.”

    42. MJ
      October 15th, 2009 | 2:59 pm

      butchie22 wrote:

      This is Joba the Hut, maybe $8500 not $850.:)

      LOL, you’re right, I grossly underestimated #62′s appetite on a 10-hour drive. :-D

    43. MJ
      October 15th, 2009 | 3:01 pm

      Raf wrote:

      What really concerns me is Girardi’s tendency to burn through a bullpen. When it comes down to it, there really isn’t any reason Joba, Robertson, Hughes, Aceves or Gaudin should pitch less than an inning unless they’re ineffective. At minimum, they should be able to pitch through the order once.

      Agreed. Girardi did his best Tony LaRussa imitation and overmanaged the bullpen during the ALDS. We should expect the same in the ALCS.

    44. JeremyM
      October 15th, 2009 | 3:32 pm

      To be fair, I think some of the bullpen moves- specifically game 1- were motivated more by a desire to get the pitcher in a game before anyone got too rusty then Girardi trying to mix and match and flex his “genius.” But I might be wrong.

    45. butchie22
      October 15th, 2009 | 3:36 pm

      MJ wrote:

      butchie22 wrote:
      The Phillies got him for a decent amount of money and he it wasn’t about giving up talent either. One more thing when was Gaudin ever on Pedro’s level?
      The Yankees traded cash for Gaudin so Philly’s acquisition of Pedro was the same transaction as the Yanks’ acqusition of Gaudin. Let’s not pretend that the Yanks gave up some monumental piece to get Gaudin when they could’ve had Pedro for free. Both were available “for free” as it were.
      Second, let me repeat: it is irrelevant whether or not Gaudin was ever as good as Pedro. The question should only be whether Gaudin could pitch well going forward. If we must compare Gaudin to Pedro:
      PM (PHI): 44.2 IP, 118 ERA+
      CG (NYY): 42 IP, 130 ERA+ (105.1 IP, 73 ERA+ for SDP)
      I think Gaudin is a scrub and I’m not arguing that he was ever better than Pedro. But in an identical number of innings for the Yanks as Pedro had in Philly, Gaudin outperformed him.
      And again, as I said above:
      “The fact that several other AL teams in need of starting pitching help passed on Pedro — a guy that was pretty much willing to pitch for peanuts this year — tells me that most AL GM’s didn’t think his stuff would play in the superior offensive league.”

      I thought that there was an AL team interested in him …..My point regarding Petey the Headhunter was that he was preferable to Gaudin. Yes, Gaudin is a semi-scrub BUT Pedro is just OK. He’s done decently in his role in Philly and would have been OK in a long relief role in the AL or select relief appearances. I saw him last year at Shea and he pitched pretty decently. NOT like Pedro at his zenith by any means BUT he was good. I understand the statistical comparsion ‘tween the two but the Yanks were gunning for a playoff spot and looking towards a playoff game. who’s definitely starting for his respective team in the playoffs: Pedro or Chad the Cad? Pedro, though it is scary to think that joke between Corey and I will turn out to be true….

      Can anyone imagine winning this playoff series with a Gaudin start in game 4 and then winning a World Series with Gaudin in Game 4? I just can’t see them wiining that 4th game with Gaudin especially since Kazmir is pitching that game as well.

    46. butchie22
      October 15th, 2009 | 3:39 pm

      Raf wrote:

      What really concerns me is Girardi’s tendency to burn through a bullpen. When it comes down to it, there really isn’t any reason Joba, Robertson, Hughes, Aceves or Gaudin should pitch less than an inning unless they’re ineffective. At minimum, they should be able to pitch through the order once.

      Shades of both Torre AND La Russa,eh? Girardi did overplay his hand so to speak. We’ll see if he suffers from the same syndrome in the ALCS especially against a team as good as the Angels……

    47. bfriley76
      October 15th, 2009 | 4:15 pm

      butchie22 wrote:

      Can anyone imagine winning this playoff series with a Gaudin start in game 4 and then winning a World Series with Gaudin in Game 4? I

      We won a World Series with a Denny Neagle start in Game 4, why not a Gaudin start?

    48. MJ
      October 15th, 2009 | 4:21 pm

      bfriley76 wrote:

      We won a World Series with a Denny Neagle start in Game 4, why not a Gaudin start?

      Actually, that’s a very sensible and reassuring thought.

      Great way to end the thread!

    49. Evan3457
      October 15th, 2009 | 5:53 pm

      Re: who the Yankees should have traded for instead of Gaudin…in the end, $$$ was as big an issue as talent.

      When the Yanks signed Tex, Hal said, in effect, “OK, you can have Tex, but that’s it; no more big ticket items“. That precludes a big deal for Lee, a big deal for Halladay, a big deal for Peavy, a big deal for Walter Johnson, a big deal for Sandy Koufax.

      Would Pedro have made a better “cheap” acquisition than Gaudin? Maybe. His experience in this sort of spot is superior to Gaudin’s. Is his stuff still as good? I don’t know; I don’t know that Pedro could pitch successfully to an AL lineup at this point. He might; but the other half of maybe is maybe not.

      =========================================
      The season rests on Chad Gaudin? The only way that’s true is if the Yanks are down 3-0 going into game 4, and rain prevents CC from going on 3 days’ rest.

      No, the long and the short of this is that the season does NOT rest on Gaudin’s wing, or breast, or thigh, and in the remote possibility that the Yanks find themselves in that position, then they have a lot bigger problems than their #4 starter….like, most likely, their #1, 2, and 3 starters…and/or their lineup.

    50. Raf
      October 15th, 2009 | 7:16 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      Re: who the Yankees should have traded for instead of Gaudin…in the end, $$$ was as big an issue as talent.

      When the Yanks signed Tex, Hal said, in effect, “OK, you can have Tex, but that’s it; no more big ticket items“. That precludes a big deal for Lee, a big deal for Halladay, a big deal for Peavy, a big deal for Walter Johnson, a big deal for Sandy Koufax.

      And who’s to say that they were even considered. Maybe they were in on Lee, but Amaro liked the Phillies’ package more. Maybe the Jays really weren’t interested in trading Halliday. They saw Pedro throw, and passed. They passed on Smoltz and Penny. Washburn? Pavano? Really?

    51. October 18th, 2009 | 8:16 pm

      [...] interesting to see if this works for the Yankees or not. Then again, CC on three days is probably better than Chad Gaudin, right? What do you think of Girardi’s call [...]

    Leave a reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.