• July 2010 Survey Question #2

    Posted by on July 19th, 2010 · Comments (9)

    Please consider taking the following poll:

    {democracy:105}

    Thanks in advance. And, please feel free to add comments on your opinion in the comments section.

    Comments on July 2010 Survey Question #2

    1. MJ Recanati
      July 19th, 2010 | 3:17 pm

      Javy. Gave up a 4th OF, a LFP reliever and a low-A RHP prospect for a guy that should pitch roughly 200 innings of league-average ball at a reasonable one-year contract. Very solid move.

    2. July 19th, 2010 | 3:44 pm

      MJ Recanati wrote:

      Javy. Gave up a 4th OF, a LFP reliever and a low-A RHP prospect for a guy that should pitch roughly 200 innings of league-average ball at a reasonable one-year contract. Very solid move.

      Still seems like a lot to give up for a guy projected to go 14-14 this season with an ERA close to 4.50…and having to pay him $11.5 MILLION to do it, to boot.

    3. MJ Recanati
      July 19th, 2010 | 3:57 pm

      Steve Lombardi wrote:

      Still seems like a lot to give up for a guy projected to go 14-14 this season with an ERA close to 4.50…and having to pay him $11.5 MILLION to do it, to boot.

      How so? Melky was made redundant by Gardner, Dunn’s just a reliever and those are fungible. Vizcaino was the big piece to the trade and he’s got at least two years of MiLB seasoning before he makes his MLB debut and that’s with the big “if” that goes with all minor league prospects.

      I’m not sure I see such a heavy pricetag on the trade. We gave up nothing in terms of 2010-2012 value and got a solid arm in return at a very salary with no longer-term obligation.

      For 2 months of Cliff Lee, Texas gave up their #2 prospect who was MLB-ready. For 6 months of Javy Vazquez, the Yanks gave up their #3 prospect who was several years away from making it to the big leagues. No brainer.

    4. MJ Recanati
      July 19th, 2010 | 3:58 pm

      MJ Recanati wrote:

      very salary

      Should read “very fair salary”

    5. July 19th, 2010 | 4:16 pm

      MJ Recanati wrote:

      Melky was made redundant by Gardner,

      You’d rather have Winn, Huffman, and Golson getting PA as a back-up OF rather than Melky?

      And, please, save me the Cliff Lee logic. Lee has proven that he can be an ace in the post-season – a guy who can win Games 1, 4, and 7 in a series. Vazquez is NOT that guy.

      Plus, $11.5 million is on the high end for SP $. I would bet that puts him in the top 20 for pay for SP in 2010 – or close to it.

    6. MJ Recanati
      July 19th, 2010 | 4:29 pm

      Steve Lombardi wrote:

      You’d rather have Winn, Huffman, and Golson getting PA as a back-up OF rather than Melky?

      They’re all the same, Steve. We’ve grown attached to Melky but let’s not pretend he was anything more than a below league-average hitter with, at best, slightly above-average defensive range. Huffman and Golson are AAAA players, Winn was a washed-up MLB vet. Neither the AAAA’s nor the washed-up MLB vet are that dissimilar from Melky. He falls in right in the middle.

      Steve Lombardi wrote:

      And, please, save me the Cliff Lee logic. Lee has proven that he can be an ace in the post-season – a guy who can win Games 1, 4, and 7 in a series. Vazquez is NOT that guy.

      I won’t save you that logic because that’s exactly how you have to look at it. What was the alternative? Sabathia, Burnett and Pettitte were clearly the front three. The fifth spot was going to be one pitcher culled from the Hughes/Chamberlain/Mitre/Gaudin/Aceves “competition.” The fourth spot was open and the Yanks wanted to fill it with someone that could “pitch up” to a #2/#3 spot in theory but would do no worse than provide capable innings to protect against an implosion from the #5 spot or injury/unpredictability from the #2/#3 spots. Vazquez fit that profile quite nicely. He would come in and be a #4 at worst, could dominate for stretches (as he’s done from mid-May-present) and be a solid arm.

      If you wanted Cliff Lee or Roy Halladay — and clearly Brian Cashman did, both in the off-season and two weeks ago — the cost would’ve been much more.

      The point isn’t what Lee is vs. Vazquez or what Lee can be in October that most Yankee fans believe Vazquez cannot be. The point is what role Cashman wanted to fill in the rotation and at what cost. He got his role filled at a much more reasonable cost than Texas did, for three times the duration.

      Steve Lombardi wrote:

      Plus, $11.5 million is on the high end for SP $. I would bet that puts him in the top 20 for pay for SP in 2010 – or close to it.

      $11.5M is on the high end for SP in Kansas City or Minnesota. It’s nothing for the Yanks, Red Sox, Cubs, Mets or Dodgers. Nor was it that much for Atlanta. I don’t know if it’s top-20 or not but why is that relevant? It’s roughly the going rate for #1/#3 starters on big-market teams and, considering the fact that there’s no longer-term obligation, it’s really not impacting our future in any way.

    7. Evan3457
      July 19th, 2010 | 7:09 pm

      It’s going to be Granderson, long-term. As of now, Vazquez.

    8. Raf
      July 19th, 2010 | 7:29 pm

      Steve Lombardi wrote:

      Plus, $11.5 million is on the high end for SP $. I would bet that puts him in the top 20 for pay for SP in 2010 – or close to it.

      Talk to Reinsdorf and Co, they’re the ones who signed Vazquez to that contract.

    9. July 20th, 2010 | 11:54 pm

      @ Evan3457:

      How could anyone see anything positive coming out of the Granderson situation. There were a few people around here who questioned this pick-up from the start (I was one of them). Right now he is a total bust offensively; he shouldn’t be even starting against left-handers.

    Leave a reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.