• Report: Yanks To Add Starting Pitcher In Next 12 Days

    Posted by on December 21st, 2009 · Comments (82)

    Via Mike Puma -

    Yankees GM Brian Cashman’s list of naughty and nice still includes a few starting pitchers in the latter category.

    With his everyday lineup for 2010 set, Cashman has turned attention to the rotation, and will almost certainly add a starter by New Year’s, according to a major league source.

    Cashman is believed to have inquired about Carlos Zambrano, but with the Cubs’ asking price high for the 28-year-old right-hander — who is coming off an injury-plagued 2009 — it’s more probable the Yankees will go the free-agent route.

    That means selecting from a pool that includes Jason Marquis, Joel Pineiro and Ben Sheets, any of whom would slot behind CC Sabathia, A.J. Burnett and Andy Pettitte in the Yankees’ rotation.

    The increased sense of urgency to add pitching depth comes after the Red Sox last week signed John Lackey to a five-year contract worth $82.5 million and added him to a rotation that includes Josh Beckett, Jon Lester and Clay Buchholz.

    Adding another starter would allow the Yankees to keep Phil Hughes in the bullpen next season or have him assume the fifth spot in the rotation with Joba Chamberlain reclaiming a bullpen role.

    Betcha it’s Ben Sheets. He’s been on Cashman’s radar for a long time.

    Comments on Report: Yanks To Add Starting Pitcher In Next 12 Days

    1. MJ
      December 21st, 2009 | 10:22 am

      Zambrano is owed another $54M over the next three years. If the Cubs want to trade him, they either have to pick up his salary or take C prospects for him. Even still, Zambrano hasn’t pitched 200 innings since 2007 and is about as likeable as day-old dog shit stuck on your shoe. Pass.

      Marquis and Piniero belong in the NL, plain and simple. Pass.

      I hope it’s Ben Sheets, because he’s the best of the bunch. Having said that, he’s the pitching version of Nick Johnson: never healthy. The Yanks shouldn’t count on him for more than 130 innings.

      As much as I’ve defended Cashman on this site, I think he’s having a rotten off-season.

    2. Corey
      December 21st, 2009 | 10:27 am

      MJ wrote:

      As much as I’ve defended Cashman on this site, I think he’s having a rotten off-season.

      Really? Por Que?

    3. December 21st, 2009 | 10:28 am

      @ MJ: Give him another half-billion to spend this off-season, like last year, and I’m sure he would look great. ;-)

    4. Corey
      December 21st, 2009 | 10:38 am

      Steve Lombardi wrote:

      @ MJ: Give him another half-billion to spend this off-season, like last year, and I’m sure he would look great.

      This is where my problem lies. You can’t complain about him not getting Doc or anyone else if you’re going to complain about him spending half a billion. That’s not fair.

    5. Raf
      December 21st, 2009 | 10:52 am

      Corey wrote:

      MJ wrote:
      As much as I’ve defended Cashman on this site, I think he’s having a rotten off-season.
      Really? Por Que?

      Yeah, I don’t see it either. The team doesn’t need to be overhauled, just fine tuned. While it may not have been a great offseason, I wouldn’t say it’s rotten either.

    6. December 21st, 2009 | 10:56 am

      @ Corey:Here’s my line there.

      It’s one thing to go out and flat buy a player – like he did with CC, Tex, and AJ. And, it’s another thing to go out and trade for a player and then give him tons of money.

      What’s the difference? It works like this:

      When you go out and flat out buy a player, it shows that you can only acquire talent by buying it – and can only be smart if your owner has deep pockets and is willing to spend. And, when you buy a player on the free agent market, like CC, Tex, and AJ, you’re dealing with other bidders on an open market and then have to pay top dollar on the player if you want to win.

      But, trading for a player and then locking him up, extending him, etc., then you’re showing that you’re an astute GM who has built up a surplus of talented prospects that other teams desire – and you’re using your chips to acquire a player before he hits the open market – and before other teams can enrty the bidding on his contract demands, raising the price to the MAX, etc.

      For an example: See what the Phillies did to get Halladay. They used prospects to get him before he hit the open market and then extended him to a contract that was big – but not as big as it would have been if he had been a free agent.

      The Granderson deal, if Granderson were a superstar instead of a good but flawed player, would be an example of a smart GM move. Buying CC, Tex and AJ for a half-billion dollars is just taking your owners huge wads of cash and blowing everyone else out of the water. And, without that dough, you’re not so smart anymore…

    7. Corey
      December 21st, 2009 | 10:59 am

      @ Steve Lombardi:
      So by that logic, trading for Santana was the right move, and signing CC is the bad move? I know it feels like we’re beating a dead horse, but that plan seemed to work out perfectly IMO.

    8. JOM
      December 21st, 2009 | 11:02 am

      I’m taking the bait:

      1) So far, Cashman has made the lineup younger and IMO better:
      -Johnson is 4-5 years younger than Matsui with an identical OPS+ over a multi-year sample. Health problems, you say? He’s a DH, just like “The Sayonara Kid” would have been.
      -Damon for Granderson: Cashman is trading JD’s age risk vs. the potential that CG does not return to his OPS+ form of ’07 and ’08. Still, The Yankees are getting younger and he has a positive UZR/150. I like this deal.

      Jeter/Johnson/Tex/Alex/Granderson/Posada/Cano/Swisher/Melky: I concede that this is a “paper” lineup in December, but come on you’ve got to be excited.

      2) OK: Sheets is an injury risk and the low-cost, high-upside strategy is risky in and of itself (i.e., Red Sox 2009) but at the right price Cashman must do this deal.

    9. MJ
      December 21st, 2009 | 11:09 am

      @ Raf:
      @ Corey:
      -Trading for Granderson is fine, except that Mike Cameron’s the same player (offensively and defensively), costs less, and doesn’t need to be acquired via trade. I’m not UPSET we got Granderson — he’s fine, neither outstanding nor terrible — but I don’t see why the Yanks didn’t just grab Cammy, either instead of Granderson or as a part of a newer outfield for 2010 (Granderon in LF, Cammy in CF).

      -Letting Damon walk over $3M/year. Utterly ridiculous. There is no player on next year’s potential wish list that couldn’t be added because Damon’s 2Y/$20M contract would stand in the way. The Yanks would be much better off with a Damon-Granderson-Swisher OF than they’ll be with a Cabrera-Granderson-Swisher OF.

      -Letting Hideki walk and replacing him with Nick Johnson just doesn’t make any sense. You can’t beat the “younger and more athletic” drum but then bring Johnson in. He’s no healthier than Matsui and although he’s a few years older, someone with that injury history has to be considered an “old” 31-32. Spare me the .400 OBP, I’m well aware of it. I’m also well aware that he only averages 100 games a year and no longer plays a defensive position, which basically means a lot more of the backup catcher and backup infielder getting AB’s in the 2010 season.

      Cashman didn’t want to go over $14M for a solid player in Damon but Cameron signed for $15.5M in Boston. Why on earth didn’t Cashman just go grab Cameron while he had the chance?

      Everyone has the right to their opinion but I think Cashman’s had a rotten winter.

    10. Raf
      December 21st, 2009 | 11:15 am

      Steve Lombardi wrote:

      But, trading for a player and then locking him up, extending him, etc., then you’re showing that you’re an astute GM who has built up a surplus of talented prospects that other teams desire – and you’re using your chips to acquire a player before he hits the open market – and before other teams can enrty the bidding on his contract demands, raising the price to the MAX, etc.

      You’re still dealing with bidders on an open market.

    11. December 21st, 2009 | 11:19 am

      Corey wrote:

      So by that logic, trading for Santana was the right move, and signing CC is the bad move? I know it feels like we’re beating a dead horse, but that plan seemed to work out perfectly IMO.

      Actually, my answer might surprise you here.

      I would offer that buying CC and not trading players for Santana was the better move…

      ;-) But, with one qualifier here.

      It only cost money to get CC (well, that and a draft pick, I suppose) whereas it would have cost players AND money to get Johan. I’m not an idiot – I understand that.

      But, this only works when you’re the G.M. of the New York Yankees and you have owners who are willing to spend $200 million a year on players. And, that’s my beef with Cashman.

      If he were the G.M. of the Twins, Rays, Brewers or Marlins, he could not play that money card. In fact, he probably couidn’t play it the way he does here, if he were in L.A., Boston, Chicago or with the Mets (today).

      He’s not special. He only spends money. And, when he doesn’t spend money, and tries to go the conventional GM route, he makes bad trades for pitching, etc. And, that’s why I think he’s a limited and flawed GM.

      Look, I’m not saying that his moves for CC, AJ, and Tex didn’t work – they did. And, I’m not saying those were bad moves for the Yankees or that the Yankees had other roads to take – they didn’t…much because of the way the farm system has worked under Cashman’s GM tenure, I would add.

      If the Yankees had a stud 1B prospect and a breakout SP coming…they would not have had the need to spend $500 million last year, etc. And, again, that falls on Cashman.

      But, you’re right. We’ve been down these roads before. These are just my opinions. Others are welcome to disagree. I’m not looking to have one of those on-and-on back-and-forths on this…as I’ve had in the past…just because someone else has a different opinion.

      Instead, I’ll share mine and encourage you to share yours. And, because they’re opinions, everyone is entitled to have one.

    12. MJ
      December 21st, 2009 | 11:19 am

      Steve Lombardi wrote:

      For an example: See what the Phillies did to get Halladay. They used prospects to get him before he hit the open market and then extended him to a contract that was big – but not as big as it would have been if he had been a free agent.

      The Mets traded prospects for Santana and extended him to the contract he would’ve gotten on the open market anyway. If you’re still going to argue that Cashman made a mistake by not trading for Santana, you’re not only arguing against yourself, given your Halladay example, you’re also arguing against the proven results of winning a World Series.

    13. Corey
      December 21st, 2009 | 11:20 am

      MJ wrote:

      -Trading for Granderson is fine, except that Mike Cameron’s the same player (offensively and defensively), costs less, and doesn’t need to be acquired via trade. I’m not UPSET we got Granderson — he’s fine, neither outstanding nor terrible — but I don’t see why the Yanks didn’t just grab Cammy, either instead of Granderson or as a part of a newer outfield for 2010 (Granderon in LF, Cammy in CF).

      I highly disagree. Cameron != Granderson at this point in their careers, that’s not fair. Young Cameron = Granderson, but not 2 years of old Cameron.

    14. December 21st, 2009 | 11:21 am

      @ Raf: Only those who can also offer the chips in the trade AND then pay the player too. It narrows down the market this way – and takes away the team, like the Yankees, who can only pay and not trade.

    15. JOM
      December 21st, 2009 | 11:22 am

      Umm, Granderson is 28 and Cameron is 36. Isn’t it logical, all other things being almost equal, to grab the younger guy? Cameron is at the age (stimulants notwithstanding) where his skills could erode at a frightening rate.

      Past lessons: Kevin Brown, Randy Johnson and Sheffield over Vlad Guerrero.

    16. Corey
      December 21st, 2009 | 11:23 am

      If he were the G.M. of the Twins, Rays, Brewers or Marlins, he could not play that money card.
      —————
      None of those teams could lock up Santana, either. (Or CC for that matter)

    17. MJ
      December 21st, 2009 | 11:24 am

      Steve Lombardi wrote:

      much because of the way the farm system has worked under Cashman’s GM tenure, I would add.

      Huh? The Yanks farm system has done just fine. It’s not the best system in baseball right now (that’s probably Texas), it hasn’t been the best system over the past five years (that’s probably Boston), but it hasn’t been a hindrance to the team either, since 2006 when Cashman took over complete control over the organization.

      You’re going to have to prove your claim that the system has been grossly mismanaged by Cashman if you’re going to hold that opinion.

    18. MJ
      December 21st, 2009 | 11:28 am

      JOM wrote:

      Umm, Granderson is 28 and Cameron is 36. Isn’t it logical, all other things being almost equal, to grab the younger guy? Cameron is at the age (stimulants notwithstanding) where his skills could erode at a frightening rate.
      Past lessons: Kevin Brown, Randy Johnson and Sheffield over Vlad Guerrero.

      First, the Yanks traded for Granderson, they didn’t “grab” him. They could’ve still “grabbed” Cameron for the same money they were willing to sign Damon.

      Second, for all the talk of Cameron’s decline, it still hasn’t happened yet. You do realize that he was as valuabe in 2009 as Granderson was? I understand that Cameron is older, but the Yanks seemed to be willing enough to bring Damon back at approximately the same age so it’s obvious that the Yanks don’t worry too much about a player’s age and decline. Cameron’s just as safe a bet in 2010 as Damon is.

      Third, if you re-read my post, I didn’t say I wanted one over the other. I’m fine with Granderson. I just think the Yanks should’ve picked Cameron also, especially since he was willing to sign such a team-friendly deal at the time that Damon was still insisting on 3Y/$39M. It makes no sense.

    19. Corey
      December 21st, 2009 | 11:33 am

      MJ wrote:

      Second, for all the talk of Cameron’s decline, it still hasn’t happened yet.

      Yea, but you’re going to pay him for 2 years to wait and see? Cameron’s decline could have us end up seeing him riding the interstate easily.

    20. December 21st, 2009 | 11:34 am

      MJ wrote:

      Huh? The Yanks farm system has done just fine.

      They why the need to fill the holes at 1B, SP1, and SP2, via spending a half-billion dollars last winter and not by trading prospects for cheaper stars or by promoting players from your own farm?

    21. Raf
      December 21st, 2009 | 11:36 am

      Steve Lombardi wrote:

      If the Yankees had a stud 1B prospect and a breakout SP coming…they would not have had the need to spend $500 million last year, etc. And, again, that falls on Cashman.

      That isn’t necessarily true. Nick Johnson’s presence did not stop the Yanks from signing Giambi. As many outfielders they had on the team in 91, it didn’t stop them from signing Danny Tartabull that offseason.

    22. Raf
      December 21st, 2009 | 11:37 am

      Steve Lombardi wrote:

      MJ wrote:
      Huh? The Yanks farm system has done just fine.
      Then why the need to fill the holes at 1B, SP1, and SP2, via spending a half-billion dollars last winter and not by trading prospects for cheaper stars or by promoting players from your own farm?

      Because that has never the Yanks’ MO

    23. Raf
      December 21st, 2009 | 11:39 am

      @ MJ:
      I would’ve been happy with a Cameron-Granderson-Swisher OF as well…

    24. MJ
      December 21st, 2009 | 11:53 am

      Corey wrote:

      Yea, but you’re going to pay him for 2 years to wait and see? Cameron’s decline could have us end up seeing him riding the interstate easily.

      That argument makes no sense considering the Yanks were willing to bring Damon back for two years. If you don’t think Damon will decline, you don’t think Cameron will decline, given that neither one has had a long line of injuries, etc.

      At a shade under $8M a year, the Yanks could’ve easily dumped Cameron on some other team or just DFA’d him if he’d decline as much as you think he would’ve.

    25. MJ
      December 21st, 2009 | 12:00 pm

      Steve Lombardi wrote:

      Then why the need to fill the holes at 1B, SP1, and SP2, via spending a half-billion dollars last winter and not by trading prospects for cheaper stars or by promoting players from your own farm?

      1) Why trade prospects for players at those positions when those players were available for mere dollars instead of a double-taxation scenario of prospects and contract extensions?

      2) Which players would’ve been better than Teixeira/Sabathia on the trade market? To get players of that caliber, you’d have to give up the entire farm system.

      2a) I agree on Burnett. He’s nothing so special that they couldn’t have found someone like him via trade.

      3) What is the benefit to the Yankees to acquiring “cheaper” stars? The Yanks spent $423.5M so obviously cheaper isn’t something they’re concerned with. And if cheaper isn’t better, why go cheaper and not be as good?

      4) Big-market teams don’t often replace from within with prospects. The Red Sox certainly don’t. For every Pedroia/Ellsbury (which I can counter with Cano/Cabrera/Gardner), they have JD Drew, Manny Ramirez, Mike Lowell, the laundry list of SS that have played there (Lugo, Renteria, Cabrera…), etc.

      The Red Sox have done a good job in recent years of developing their own starters (Lester/Buchholz) and relievers (Papelbon, Bard, Masterson) but the Yanks are heading in that direction as well, especially in the bullpen.

      You haven’t adequatenly proven that the Yanks farm system has been mismanaged.

    26. Corey
      December 21st, 2009 | 12:00 pm

      MJ wrote:

      That argument makes no sense considering the Yanks were willing to bring Damon back for two years.

      Makes sense because I am not willing to bring Damon back for 2 years, right?

      I mean, apparently I don’t say how much I don’t want Damon on this team anymore enough?

    27. MJ
      December 21st, 2009 | 12:01 pm

      Raf wrote:

      @ MJ:
      I would’ve been happy with a Cameron-Granderson-Swisher OF as well…

      Good to hear. Defensively, it would’ve been stellar and offensively it would’ve been more productive than last year’s.

    28. MJ
      December 21st, 2009 | 12:03 pm

      @ Corey:
      But you still haven’t argued any good reason why Damon shouldn’t be back, other than you hate him. You’ve never argued that Damon shouldn’t be back because you expect him to decline. If you’re saying that now, that’s a different story.

      Furthermore, regardless of your own opinion, the Yanks clearly were willing to bring Damon back for two years. Therefore, if they were willing to bring Damon back for two years, they weren’t worried about his decline in 2010. I’d argue that Cameron presents no greater decline risk than Damon does.

    29. Corey
      December 21st, 2009 | 12:07 pm

      MJ wrote:

      I’d argue that Cameron presents no greater decline risk than Damon does.

      I agree with that, but I think they’ll both decline.

      One on side, you have a declining idiot who happens to almost throw it in the stands and is a nightmare in the field. On the other hand you have a declining outfielder who runs full sprint into other outfielders and strikes out like it’s in style. I think I’ll pass on both.

    30. December 21st, 2009 | 12:18 pm

      MJ wrote:

      You haven’t adequatenly proven that the Yanks farm system has been mismanaged.

      Prove that it has been managed well. Look at their top 5 draft picks from each draft since 2003 and tell me how great those picks were. Look at all their international signings and tell me how great they were too. Show me your lists.

    31. MJ
      December 21st, 2009 | 12:22 pm

      Corey wrote:

      [Y]ou have a declining outfielder who runs full sprint into other outfielders and strikes out like it’s in style. I think I’ll pass on both.

      Cameron might decline but he hasn’t yet so you can’t call him declining until he actualy does.

      As to the strikeotus, if you don’t like Cameron’s K’s, you won’t like Granderson’s either. Does that mean you were against the trade?

    32. Corey
      December 21st, 2009 | 12:29 pm

      MJ wrote:

      As to the strikeotus, if you don’t like Cameron’s K’s, you won’t like Granderson’s either. Does that mean you were against the trade?

      It’s the summation of the issues, not any 1 thing. And, for the record (although I’ve stated it a few times), I think we over-paid for C-Grand.

    33. MJ
      December 21st, 2009 | 12:51 pm

      Steve Lombardi wrote:

      Prove that it has been managed well. Look at their top 5 draft picks from each draft since 2003 and tell me how great those picks were. Look at all their international signings and tell me how great they were too. Show me your lists.

      I’ll be happy to.

      Top Picks 2003-present:
      ’03 – Eric Duncan, 3B
      ’04 – Phil Hughes, RHP
      ’05 – CJ Henry, SS
      ’06 – Ian Kennedy, LHP
      ’07 – Andrew Brackman, RHP
      ’08 – Jeremy Bleich, LHP
      ’09 – Slade Heathcott, OF

      To begin, let’s not even waste time talking about the ’08 and ’09 picks as it’s far too soon to know what’ll happen with those guys. Bleich made it to AA last year and could possibly make the big leauges at the end of this season or early next year but it’s too speculative at this point. Heathcott will be playing his first season of pro ball this year so we’ll know more at the end of this year as to how his first professional season went.

      Hughes (’04) spent the majority of the 2009 season as one of baseball’s best relievers. Among all relief pitchers in baseball, only Jonathan Broxton (2.9), Matt Thornton (2.5), Michael Wuertz, Brian Wilson and Andrew Bailey (2.4) posted higher WAR values than Hughes (2.2). 2009 was a major step forward for him and there’s nothing you can say to argue against that. What happens in the future is obviously impossible to predict but he’s already paid a dividend in reaching the big leagues and another dividend in succeeding as an everyday reliever.

      Henry (’05) and Kennedy (’06) were used as key components in trades to improve the major league roster. You have argued that prospects traded for major leaguers is one of the signs of an astute GM. I would argue that Abreu and Granderson were good acquisitions for the Yankees and that they used their prospects wisely. Therefore, those draft picks justified themselves as valuable because they were used to improve the Yankees’ 25-man roster.

      That leaves Duncan (’03) and Brackman (’07). Duncan’s time in the Yanks system is over. He’s clearly a bust. Brackman is not a bust yet but may turn out to be one. This year will tell us a lot about which direction Brackman is headed.

      Out of five drafts (2003-2007), the Yanks have turned two prospects into starters (Henry>Abreu; Kennedy>Granderson), had one player graduate to the big leagues and provide top-10 value at his position (Hughes) and two players provide no value whatsoever (Duncan/Brackman). That’s 3/5 successes right now.

      Would you like me to run a comparison of 1st round picks for every other team from ’03-’07? I think you’ll find that no team got it 100% right.

    34. December 21st, 2009 | 1:03 pm

      @ MJ:

      I said: Look at their top 5 draft picks from each draft since 2003 and tell me how great those picks were.

      That’s 35 picks – not 7.

    35. MJ
      December 21st, 2009 | 1:05 pm

      Sorry, I didn’t see the mandate for top 5 picks from ’03-present. I misread it as top picks.

      2003 – Duncan, Estee Harris, Timothy Battle, Steven White, Cory Stuart
      2004 – Hughes, Jonathan Poterson, Jeff Marquez, Brett Smith, Christian Garcia
      2005 – Henry, JB Cox, Brett Gardner, Lance Pendleton, Zach Kroenke
      2006 – Kenendy, Chamberlain, Zach McAllister, Colin Curtis, George Kontos
      2007 – Brackman, Austin Romine, Ryan Pope, Brad Suttle, Adam Olbrychowski

      What am I looking for exactly? 2003 looks bad. 2004 has Hughes, a piece of the Swisher trade (Marquez) and someone on our 40-man roster (Garcia). 2005 has a piece of the Abreu trade (Henry), your favorite outfielder (Gardner), and a guy that was drafted in the Rule V draft the past two seasons (Zroenke). 2006 has a piece of the Granderson trade (Kennedy), a quality relief pitcher with starter upside (Chamberlain), one of the Yanks ’09 top-10 prospects (McAllister) and another developing arm (Kontos). 2007 has one of the Yanks ’09 top-10 prospects (Romine).

      So, again, would you like me to compare that with every other big-market club (Red Sox, Mets, Angels, Dodgers, Cubs)? I’m happy to do so.

      Ultimately I don’t think you’ll find any evidence of mismanagement. What you’ll find is that the Yanks don’t draft or develop as well as the Red Sox but draft/develop better than other clubs. In short, if the Yanks are an average farm system among their chief big-market competitors, that doesn’t prove mismanagement since it hasn’t been to the Yanks’ detriment.

    36. Corey
      December 21st, 2009 | 1:06 pm

      Steve Lombardi wrote:

      @ MJ:
      I said: Look at their top 5 draft picks from each draft since 2003 and tell me how great those picks were.
      That’s 35 picks – not 7.

      Show me a team who’s dominated their top 35 draft picks of the past 7 years.

    37. December 21st, 2009 | 1:06 pm

      @ MJ: And, don’t try and fool me by saying that Henry has the carrot on the stick that got them Abreu. He was already a failed prospect by then. Abreu’s contract and the Yankees being willing to take it is what got the Yankees Abreu. Henry was a throw in, which the Phillies took, as a scratch off lotto ticket kind of thing…knowing he was probably crap, but, worth rubbing on to find out.

    38. MJ
      December 21st, 2009 | 1:07 pm

      @ Steve Lombardi:
      See below. There’s no point in looking at ’08 and ’09 because the results of that draft are practically unknown for every single team in baseball.

    39. Corey
      December 21st, 2009 | 1:07 pm

      MJ wrote:

      a quality relief pitcher with starter upside (Chamberlain)

      how big of you :P

    40. December 21st, 2009 | 1:08 pm

      Corey wrote:

      Show me a team who’s dominated their top 35 draft picks of the past 7 years.

      Doesn’t have to be “dominated” to be good. Just needs more hits than misses.

    41. December 21st, 2009 | 1:09 pm

      MJ wrote:

      See below. There’s no point in looking at ‘08 and ‘09 because the results of that draft are practically unknown for every single team in baseball.

      Fine. Look at their top 5 draft picks from each draft since 2003 until 2007 and tell me how great those picks were.

    42. Corey
      December 21st, 2009 | 1:09 pm

      Steve Lombardi wrote:

      Doesn’t have to be “dominated” to be good. Just needs more hits than misses.

      I’d settle for that. I still don’t think there’s a team with more hits than misses.

    43. MJ
      December 21st, 2009 | 1:14 pm

      @ Corey:
      It’s the truth. Chamberlain is a good relief pitcher right now. If he never starts another game again and lives on as a relief pitcher, he has already justified the selection. I personally don’t know what kind of starter he will become but that’s totally irrelevant. The fact remains that he has unknown high-ceiling potential as a starter, is already a good reliever and is therefore arguably the Yanks best draft pick of this decade.

      I don’t particularly care for Chamberlain but I grant that a lot of my distaste for him is performance-based. If he pitches well, I’ll like him a lot more.

    44. MJ
      December 21st, 2009 | 1:17 pm

      Steve Lombardi wrote:

      Fine. Look at their top 5 draft picks from each draft since 2003 until 2007 and tell me how great those picks were.

      You do realize, however, that you’re ignoring all the other draft picks in a draft. The Yanks drafted Jackson in the 9th round. What about him? What about signability cases?

      Part of the Yanks’ advantage is that they can dig deeper into a draft. If you’re capping the discussion at 5 rounds you’re ignoring the reality that a team like the Yanks can do just as important work further down in a draft.

    45. Corey
      December 21st, 2009 | 1:19 pm

      @ MJ:
      I really, really, really think if they had a good game caller behind the plate and he would listen, Joba would be that good as a starter.

    46. MJ
      December 21st, 2009 | 1:19 pm

      Steve Lombardi wrote:

      @ MJ: And, don’t try and fool me by saying that Henry has the carrot on the stick that got them Abreu. He was already a failed prospect by then. Abreu’s contract and the Yankees being willing to take it is what got the Yankees Abreu. Henry was a throw in, which the Phillies took, as a scratch off lotto ticket kind of thing…knowing he was probably crap, but, worth rubbing on to find out.

      First, short of injury or a legal situation that precludes you from playing baseball, it’s nearly impossible to be a failed prospect one full year into your pro career. What happened to Henry AFTER the Abreu trade is irrelevant. Obviously he’s a failed prospect now that he’s out of baseball but, at the time, he was merely a 20 year old in Single-A.

      Second, you’re not proving the mismanagent of the farm system by arguing that the Yanks got Abreu because Philly wanted to shed payroll.

    47. Corey
      December 21st, 2009 | 1:21 pm

      MJ wrote:

      If you’re capping the discussion at 5 rounds you’re ignoring the reality that a team like the Yanks can do just as important work further down in a draft.

      What do you mean? It’s not like 1 of our starters happened to be drafted in the 22nd round or something crazy like that right?

    48. MJ
      December 21st, 2009 | 1:23 pm

      Corey wrote:

      I really, really, really think if they had a good game caller behind the plate and he would listen, Joba would be that good as a starter.

      They could have Johnny effin’ Bench back there and it wouldn’t make a difference. It’s not just the game being called, it’s a regression in the quality of his stuff. He doesn’t use his CB anymore and his SL isn’t a pitch that he can throw for strikes (yet). He needs to refine his stuff at AAA if he wants to be a big league starter. It’s not just about his pitch patterns, it’s about his repertoire and his command.

      His stuff will play as a relief pitcher right now, today, no question about it. For that reason alone, he’s valuable to the team.

      But all of the Joba talk is neither here nor there.

    49. MJ
      December 21st, 2009 | 1:27 pm

      Corey wrote:

      What do you mean? It’s not like 1 of our starters happened to be drafted in the 22nd round or something crazy like that right?

      Phil Coke was the 26th round selection of the Yanks in 2002. He was traded to make room for the emergence of the Yanks 33rd round selection in the 2004 draft, Mike Dunn.

      I could go on.

    50. Corey
      December 21st, 2009 | 1:27 pm

      MJ wrote:

      They could have Johnny effin’ Bench back there and it wouldn’t make a difference. It’s not just the game being called, it’s a regression in the quality of his stuff.

      I disagree. He throws the same pattern every game. Stevie Wonder would know the slider is diving down and in to him when he bats left handed, down and away if he was batting right handed.

      The fact that he doesnt use his CB would be in agreement with me, no? Someone needs to decide to throw the CB for it to be thrown, no?

    51. December 21st, 2009 | 1:32 pm

      MJ wrote:

      You do realize, however, that you’re ignoring all the other draft picks in a draft. The Yanks drafted Jackson in the 9th round. What about him? What about signability cases?

      Fine. I was trying to make it easy on you. But, have it your way.

      Look at their top 10 draft picks from each draft since 2003 until 2007 and tell me how they’ve had more hits than misses. And, once that’s proven, I’ll agree that they’ve done a good job with the farm system. But, if it’s more misses than hits, what will you say then?

    52. MJ
      December 21st, 2009 | 1:39 pm

      Corey wrote:

      I disagree. He throws the same pattern every game.

      Pitch pattern is only one part of the problem. Sure, changing the pattern would improve things but until Chamberlain proves that he can throw his breaking pitch for a called strike, it doesn’t matter if he throws the SL on every two-strike count or not. Even if he changed his pattern and threw the SL in the dirt on the first pitch of an AB, the fact remains that (1) he’s currently a two-pitch pitcher and it’s hard to have an unpredictable pattern when there are only two pitches to choose from and (2) the ability to get called strikes dramatically increases a pitcher’s arsenal such that even if he’s only a two-pitch pitcher, a hitter has to respect the SL in the dirt as much as the SL inside that gets called for a strike. John Lackey is a perfect example of this with his two distinct breaking balls.

      Corey wrote:

      The fact that he doesnt use his CB would be in agreement with me, no? Someone needs to decide to throw the CB for it to be thrown, no?

      No. You’re assuming that no one ever calls the CB. I have no idea what Posada, Molina and Cervelli called for Chamberlain but I assume that if Chamberlain were confident enough to thow something other than his FB and SL, he’d throw a third pitch with greater regularity. That tells me that he and the team (Girardi, Eiland, the catchers) don’t like that pitch as it is currently constituted. Considering the argument for Chamberlain the starter was always that he was a four-pitch pitcher, something has changed.

    53. Evan3457
      December 21st, 2009 | 1:46 pm

      Steve Lombardi wrote:

      @ Corey:Here’s my line there.
      It’s one thing to go out and flat buy a player – like he did with CC, Tex, and AJ. And, it’s another thing to go out and trade for a player and then give him tons of money.
      What’s the difference? It works like this:
      When you go out and flat out buy a player, it shows that you can only acquire talent by buying it – and can only be smart if your owner has deep pockets and is willing to spend. And, when you buy a player on the free agent market, like CC, Tex, and AJ, you’re dealing with other bidders on an open market and then have to pay top dollar on the player if you want to win.
      But, trading for a player and then locking him up, extending him, etc., then you’re showing that you’re an astute GM who has built up a surplus of talented prospects that other teams desire – and you’re using your chips to acquire a player before he hits the open market – and before other teams can enrty the bidding on his contract demands, raising the price to the MAX, etc.
      For an example: See what the Phillies did to get Halladay. They used prospects to get him before he hit the open market and then extended him to a contract that was big – but not as big as it would have been if he had been a free agent.
      The Granderson deal, if Granderson were a superstar instead of a good but flawed player, would be an example of a smart GM move. Buying CC, Tex and AJ for a half-billion dollars is just taking your owners huge wads of cash and blowing everyone else out of the water. And, without that dough, you’re not so smart anymore…

      Look, this is just plain wrong.

      Cashman HAD the prospects to deal for Santana. We know this, because the Twins asked them for several different packages. Cashman simply judged it smarter not to use them for Santana, but to save them for used in other deals, when all he had to do was wait one year, and sign Sabathia.

      And he’s not only right in the general case, his judgement was also right in this specific case, because they won this year’s title with Sabathia, and would not have won it with Santana.

      In general, if you can trade for a player and sign him to a big deal, or just sign him to a big deal, why is the trade of valuable prospects “proof of being a superior GM”? That’s exactly backwards, as far as I can see.

      As for Granderson not being part of a “good GM move” just because he’s not a superstar, that’s just plain wrong. It’s a good move if he does a good job. He doesn’t have to be a superstar for it to be a good move. In the 70′s, the Yanks built a mini-dynasty on the basis of a hefty number of trades, and none of the players obtained were superstars, although many were good solid players: Graig Nettles, Chris Chambliss, Dick Tidrow, Lou Piniella, Rudy May, Ed Figueroa, Willie Randolph, Bucky Dent, Fran Healy, Mike Torrez, Cliff Johnson.

      I simply don’t see the logic there.

    54. Corey
      December 21st, 2009 | 1:50 pm

      MJ wrote:

      No. You’re assuming that no one ever calls the CB. I have no idea what Posada, Molina and Cervelli called for Chamberlain but I assume that if Chamberlain were confident enough to thow something other than his FB and SL, he’d throw a third pitch with greater regularity.

      No, you misread my post. Part of what I said was :

      I really, really, really think if they had a good game caller behind the plate and he would listen, Joba would be that good as a starter.

      key part for this is that “he would listen” part. Therefore, if its being put down and hes shaking it off, u agree with me that they need to get him to listen.

      I think the problem was that he had too much success with the FB/slider, and he just went to it everytime because of it. His curve ball is every bit as nasty as we remember.

    55. Evan3457
      December 21st, 2009 | 1:56 pm

      MJ wrote:

      @ Raf:
      @ Corey:
      -Trading for Granderson is fine, except that Mike Cameron’s the same player (offensively and defensively), costs less, and doesn’t need to be acquired via trade.

      I don’t think he is.
      He’s eight years older, and bats righty, not lefty, so he’s not equipped to take advantage of the porch at the Stadium. His speed is starting to go (check the diminishing SB totals of the last several years).
      Granderson is better, and is a better risk to stay better for the next 2-3 years.

    56. Evan3457
      December 21st, 2009 | 1:58 pm

      Steve Lombardi wrote:

      Corey wrote:

      But, this only works when you’re the G.M. of the New York Yankees and you have owners who are willing to spend $200 million a year on players. And, that’s my beef with Cashman.
      If he were the G.M. of the Twins, Rays, Brewers or Marlins, he could not play that money card. In fact, he probably couidn’t play it the way he does here, if he were in L.A., Boston, Chicago or with the Mets (today).
      He’s not special. He only spends money. And, when he doesn’t spend money, and tries to go the conventional GM route, he makes bad trades for pitching, etc. And, that’s why I think he’s a limited and flawed GM.

      So, in other words, because he adapts normal strategic GM thinking to suit the unique position he’s in, he’s NOT smart.
      Interesting theory.

    57. MJ
      December 21st, 2009 | 2:05 pm

      Corey wrote:

      I really, really, really think if they had a good game caller behind the plate and he would listen, Joba would be that good as a starter.
      key part for this is that “he would listen” part. Therefore, if its being put down and hes shaking it off, u agree with me that they need to get him to listen.

      If Chamberlain is shaking them off, that doesn’t mean they’re not calling good games. Assuming you’re right — that the catchers call poor games — and also assuming that they call for the CB/CH — the pitches Joba is shaking off — how have we proven that they’re calling bad games? Presumably asking for Chamberlain to throw a wider variety of pitches, thus modifying his pitch pattern to some extent, wouldn’t indicate bad game-calling to me.

      If you want to tell me that the catchers on the club bear some responsibility for Chamberlain’s poor 2009, I”ll accept that only insofar as we don’t exactly know what they’re calling and thus can’t make a complete analysis of the pitch selection problem.

      But that still doesn’t change the fact that Chamberlain hasn’t proven that he can throw his breaking pitches for called strikes, nor that he can completely command the strikezone with his fastball. That’s got nothing to do with his catchers.

    58. MJ
      December 21st, 2009 | 2:11 pm

      @ Evan3457:
      Re Cammy being a RHB and Granderson being a LHB, fair enough. I don’t think that’s a very big deal against Cammy but, fine, I’ll give you that.

      Re: declining SB totals, that’s just not very scientific analysis. You can’t judge a player’s speed based only on SB totals. I didn’t watch any Brewers games last year to know why he only attempted 10 SB’s in ’09, down from 22 in ’08 or 23 in ’07 but given the fact that he still played exceptional defense last year, you’re not going to convince me that his speed vanished last year. It would show up in his ability to cover CF.

    59. G.I. Joey
      December 21st, 2009 | 2:14 pm

      MJ wrote:

      Corey wrote:
      What do you mean? It’s not like 1 of our starters happened to be drafted in the 22nd round or something crazy like that right?
      Phil Coke was the 26th round selection of the Yanks in 2002. He was traded to make room for the emergence of the Yanks 33rd round selection in the 2004 draft, Mike Dunn.
      I could go on.

      Not not to mention who Corey is originally referring to, Andy Pettitte.

    60. Corey
      December 21st, 2009 | 2:17 pm

      MJ wrote:

      If Chamberlain is shaking them off, that doesn’t mean they’re not calling good games. Assuming you’re right — that the catchers call poor games — and also assuming that they call for the CB/CH — the pitches Joba is shaking off — how have we proven that they’re calling bad games?

      Then the catchers need to grow a set and make him throw what they say.

      Was it major league where the pitcher wouldnt throw what the catcher told him to so the catcher tipped the hitter as to what was coming? Maybe they need to do this during ST to get into his head? i dunno. They gotta get him to change somehow.

    61. G.I. Joey
      December 21st, 2009 | 2:19 pm

      Corey wrote:

      MJ wrote:
      If Chamberlain is shaking them off, that doesn’t mean they’re not calling good games. Assuming you’re right — that the catchers call poor games — and also assuming that they call for the CB/CH — the pitches Joba is shaking off — how have we proven that they’re calling bad games?
      Then the catchers need to grow a set and make him throw what they say.
      Was it major league where the pitcher wouldnt throw what the catcher told him to so the catcher tipped the hitter as to what was coming? Maybe they need to do this during ST to get into his head? i dunno. They gotta get him to change somehow.

      Bull Durham. Kevin Costner tips the batter that Tim Robbins is going to throw the FB.

    62. MJ
      December 21st, 2009 | 2:28 pm

      @ Corey:
      You’re not going to sabotage your own pitcher in ST just to prove a point. Girardi, Eiland and the catchers have a plan for Chamberlain and it’s up to that group of people to implement and execute it. There’s a reason why Chamberlain became a two-pitch pitcher and it goes beyond the theories that the catchers have no balls or that Chamberlain is merely hard-headed. Apparently all parties lost confidence in Chamberlains other pitches.

      He needs time in AAA to figure this stuff out. I just don’t see why this is such a big deal. The Red Sox had Buchholz in AAA for half the year and he came back looking as good as advertised in 2008. With just a cursory glance at the 2010 schedule, it looks like the Yanks won’t need their #5 starter in the rotation until mid-May. Why not start out with that date in mind and see if Chamberlain can’t re-discover his secondary pitches and improve his command and control?

      Can Chamberlain be a good big league starter? Yes, I think so. Is it just a matter of changing his pattern or having the catcher grow balls? No, it’s much deeper than that. Why is a temporary return to AAA considered so drastic?

    63. Corey
      December 21st, 2009 | 2:29 pm

      G.I. Joey wrote:

      Bull Durham. Kevin Costner tips the batter that Tim Robbins is going to throw the FB.

      Ah yes, thanks! I was drawing a blank for some reason i thought it was involving the terminator.

      Maybe Posada should do that in spring training?

    64. Corey
      December 21st, 2009 | 2:30 pm

      MJ wrote:

      @ Corey:
      You’re not going to sabotage your own pitcher in ST just to prove a point. Girardi, Eiland and the catchers have a plan for Chamberlain and it’s up to that group of people to implement and execute it. There’s a reason why Chamberlain became a two-pitch pitcher and it goes beyond the theories that the catchers have no balls or that Chamberlain is merely hard-headed. Apparently all parties lost confidence in Chamberlains other pitches.
      He needs time in AAA to figure this stuff out. I just don’t see why this is such a big deal. The Red Sox had Buchholz in AAA for half the year and he came back looking as good as advertised in 2008. With just a cursory glance at the 2010 schedule, it looks like the Yanks won’t need their #5 starter in the rotation until mid-May. Why not start out with that date in mind and see if Chamberlain can’t re-discover his secondary pitches and improve his command and control?
      Can Chamberlain be a good big league starter? Yes, I think so. Is it just a matter of changing his pattern or having the catcher grow balls? No, it’s much deeper than that. Why is a temporary return to AAA considered so drastic?

      Cause we have 4 starters including him. (I don’t buy Hughes the starter yet).

    65. MJ
      December 21st, 2009 | 2:34 pm

      Corey wrote:

      Cause we have 4 starters including him. (I don’t buy Hughes the starter yet).

      If the Yanks sign Sheets and/or Duchscherer — something that seems pretty likely to happen — your argument against goes away entirely.

      Sabathia – Burnett – Pettitte – Sheets/Duchscherer with Aceves, Gaudin and Mitre (and Hughes) capable of picking up starts until at least mid-May.

    66. Corey
      December 21st, 2009 | 2:39 pm

      @ MJ:
      I think the real problem is going to end up being Hughes, not Joba, in the long run. Perhaps that’s why I am defending him so diligently. I have no problem sending Joba down as long as it doesn’t hurt the big club.

      One thing you should look at MJ, is Joba’s splits right around the threshold for his career high in innings pitched. You may find the results to be interesting. (I’ve made this argument many times in the past, don’t feel like retreading).

    67. Corey
      December 21st, 2009 | 2:40 pm

      Corey wrote:

      One thing you should look at MJ, is Joba’s splits right around the threshold for his career high in innings pitched.

      should read :

      One thing you should look at MJ, is Joba’s splits LAST YEAR right around the threshold for his career high in innings pitched.

    68. G.I. Joey
      December 21st, 2009 | 2:41 pm

      MJ wrote:
      Apparently all parties lost confidence in Chamberlains other pitches.

      I think this is exactly what happened and if they want this kid to be a starter they need to have him bring back the CB/CH and locate the SL better. Basically, if we want him to reach his ceiling he has to be able to effectively locate and change speeds. The best place to do this would be AAA. However, I don’t buy Hughes the starter yet either.

    69. MJ
      December 21st, 2009 | 2:51 pm

      Corey wrote:

      I think the real problem is going to end up being Hughes, not Joba, in the long run. Perhaps that’s why I am defending him so diligently. I have no problem sending Joba down as long as it doesn’t hurt the big club.

      Hughes has nothing to do with Chamberlain going back to AAA to work on things. As I illustrated above, if the Yanks sign another pitcher (as is the current rumor), neither Hughes nor Chamberlain becomes important to the Yankees as a starting pitcher before mid-May.

      I’m well aware of his numbers before he hit his career high in innings. The RAB boys have been patting themselves on the back for that one for several weeks now. That STILL doesn’t change the things you’re talking about regarding pitch pattern and it doesn’t change the things I’m talking about regarding pitch location. Innings only degrade the quality of the stuff, not the location or pattern of it. Even the freshest arm on earth can’t live with a SL that never touches the plate and even the most rested arm can’t live with only two pitches every time through the order.

      Until the RAB guys address those other factors, I’m not buying that it was *ONLY* a fatigue issue.

    70. Corey
      December 21st, 2009 | 3:05 pm

      MJ wrote:

      The RAB boys have been patting themselves on the back for that one for several weeks now.

      Ah, I actually stopped reading RAB.

    71. Corey
      December 21st, 2009 | 3:12 pm

      MJ wrote:

      Even the freshest arm on earth can’t live with a SL that never touches the plate and even the most rested arm can’t live with only two pitches every time through the order.

      My thinking is that I don’t think that Joba wants to throw it for a strike, not so much that he can’t.

      In any event, I think it’s best to assume this is the team we are going to camp with rather then assuming that they will sign another pitcher. We may well end up with a starter, but it’s not written in stone either.

    72. MJ
      December 21st, 2009 | 3:21 pm

      Corey wrote:

      My thinking is that I don’t think that Joba wants to throw it for a strike, not so much that he can’t.

      Why on earth wouldn’t you want Chamberlain to be able to throw a breaking pitch for a called strike? Without the ability to get a breaking pitch — any non-FB pitch, really — called for a strike, then Chamberlain will never succeed in the big leagues as a starting pitcher. There’s no such thing as a successful MLB pitcher if he can’t throw a non-FB for a called strike.

      Corey wrote:

      In any event, I think it’s best to assume this is the team we are going to camp with rather then assuming that they will sign another pitcher. We may well end up with a starter, but it’s not written in stone either.

      Cashman has said enough times that the Yanks are signing another pitcher. I believe him.

    73. Corey
      December 21st, 2009 | 3:33 pm

      MJ wrote:

      Why on earth wouldn’t you want Chamberlain to be able to throw a breaking pitch for a called strike?

      Huh? Who said that?

    74. Corey
      December 21st, 2009 | 3:37 pm

      MJ wrote:

      Cashman has said enough times that the Yanks are signing another pitcher. I believe him.

      Just like Cashman said Bubba was our CFer.

    75. MJ
      December 21st, 2009 | 3:41 pm

      @ Corey:
      Sorry, misread what you said. You said you don’t think Joba wants to throw it for a strike, not that you don’t want him to.

      Gotcha.

      Joba’s an idiot if he doesn’t want to throw his pitches for strikes. As to whether he can or not, nobody knows since he never does.

    76. MJ
      December 21st, 2009 | 3:44 pm

      Corey wrote:

      Just like Cashman said Bubba was our CFer.

      Except that the situations are not parallel. In the Crosby situation, he was saying that the team could have a shitty player in the starting lineup and ended up improving the team. In this situation, he’d be saying that he’ll improve the team but then not do so? Why would he say he’ll get another starting pitcher then?

      I don’t see these as identical situations.

      You actually believe the Yanks are going to pass on another starter?

    77. Corey
      December 21st, 2009 | 4:02 pm

      MJ wrote:

      You actually believe the Yanks are going to pass on another starter?

      For the right price, no they won’t pass. But I do believe that if the prices are too high, the Yanks would go into the year with what they have and if needed make a trade by the deadline.

    78. MJ
      December 21st, 2009 | 4:22 pm

      Corey wrote:

      For the right price, no they won’t pass. But I do believe that if the prices are too high, the Yanks would go into the year with what they have and if needed make a trade by the deadline.

      I’ll bet just about anything that the Yanks sign a free agent starter between now and the start of the season.

      I don’t know if it’ll be Sheets, Duchscherer or someone else but I see no reason why Cashman would constantly talk about adding a pitcher and then not do so.

    79. Evan3457
      December 21st, 2009 | 4:58 pm

      MJ wrote:

      JOM wrote:

      Second, for all the talk of Cameron’s decline, it still hasn’t happened yet. You do realize that he was as valuabe in 2009 as Granderson was?

      You do realize you’re comparing Cameron’s average value to Granderson’s value in an off-year, right?

    80. Evan3457
      December 21st, 2009 | 5:13 pm

      MJ wrote:

      @ Evan3457:
      Re Cammy being a RHB and Granderson being a LHB, fair enough. I don’t think that’s a very big deal against Cammy but, fine, I’ll give you that.

      Re: declining SB totals, that’s just not very scientific analysis. You can’t judge a player’s speed based only on SB totals. I didn’t watch any Brewers games last year to know why he only attempted 10 SB’s in ‘09, down from 22 in ‘08 or 23 in ‘07 but given the fact that he still played exceptional defense last year, you’re not going to convince me that his speed vanished last year. It would show up in his ability to cover CF.

      Fair enough; SB is one indicator. Triples are another. Cameron used to be good for 5-9 triples a season. Last two seasons, 3.
      If you go by UZR his defensive range has improved significantly at age 35 and 36. That is extremely suspect and very rare. A player has to make major changes to his game (Jeter) and even then, he’s fighting father time. It is more like a ballpark effect. UZR says that Cameron was better than Granderson last season. BIS’ +/- numbers says is was the other way around; Granderson was the 3rd best regular CF, and Cameron, 16th best.
      ==================
      Let’s assume that defensively, they’re more or less even. The minor difference between the two is that Granderson is better suited to take advantage of Yankee Stadium that Cameron. A second minor difference is that Cameron has been in the NL the last several years; the AL is tougher. The major difference is eight years of age. It is the difference between a player in his prime, and a player who is past his prime, and at age where serious decline could be 2-3 years away, or it could be tomorrow.

      I would still rather have Granderson.

    81. jdg
      December 22nd, 2009 | 5:32 am

      The smart GM move is to look at your assets and leverage them, period. So Cashman shouldn’t pretend he’s the GM of the KC Royals, searching the baseball garbage cans for a thrown-out piece of chicken leg.

      That aside, trading young prospects for older, used-to-be or might-be-for-a-while-longer talent is moronic. You pay premium dollars and premium talent. Do the math. Now that fewer players are on the juice, a lot less are gong to play well into their late 30s. So it’s especially stupid now.

      The Yanks didn’t re-sign Matsui because they didn’t think he’d make it through 2010 healthy. They also have the best hitter in the minors in the wings (Montero) in case Johnson is injured.

      Joba should stay in the rotation. He’s finally got the innings limit out of the way and so we’ll see now if he can be aggressive and put together long stretches of elite performance.

    82. MJ
      December 22nd, 2009 | 9:12 am

      Fair enough; SB is one indicator. Triples are another. Cameron used to be good for 5-9 triples a season. Last two seasons, 3.
      ———–
      Could it be that park factors plays into that too? After all, Petco plays huge and Miller is a very HR-friendly place.

      I think you’re misinterpreting what I’m saying here. I’m not saying that I didn’t want Granderson or that he’s a scrub as compared to Cameron. I’m just saying that Cameron would’ve been a worthwhile addition to the ballclub, either in addition to Granderson or as a cheaper alternative to him.

    Leave a reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.