• Bud To Yankees: Tell That Hank To Shut Up

    Posted by on February 22nd, 2011 · Comments (22)

    Holy Holly and the Italians Batman!

    The story.

    Where was Bud when John Henry and Larry Lucchino talked about the games finances?

    Comments on Bud To Yankees: Tell That Hank To Shut Up

    1. MJ Recanati
      February 22nd, 2011 | 6:30 pm

      In general I’m sensing an eerie and unpleasant connection between Hank Steinbrenner and bad (or perceived bad) off-seasons.

      In the winter before the 2008 season, the Yanks were embroiled in the “should they or shouldn’t they” debate about trading for Johan Santana to supplement what was looking like a potentially bad pitching staff. The Yankees had a lousy (for them) season, one where the hitters just couldn’t do anything, the young pitchers were banished to AAA and the season ended in September instead of October.

      During this winter, the Yankees weren’t able to sign Cliff Lee, appear to have issues with their starting rotation and are not a lock for October baseball.

      The one eerie connection? Both off-seasons featured heightened mouthy activity from Hank Steinbrenner. Coincidence? Yes, of course. But I still don’t like it. I desperately wish someone would burn Hank’s larynx so we wouldn’t have to hear his horrible voice any longer…

    2. Evan3457
      February 22nd, 2011 | 7:02 pm

      C’mon, MJ…being the BlusterMan is the only role left unfilled in the organization after Boss George’s passing.

      Let him have his fun.

      We cringed through 30+ years of George’s inanities. Hank is just continuing the family tradition. I thought we’d catch a break with George’s decline and passing, but it’s not meant to be, I guess.

    3. Corey Italiano
      February 22nd, 2011 | 7:08 pm

      It bothers me when people say the Yankees didn’t do anything this offseason…

      They signed the best shortstop and the top 2 closers on the market. Just because Mo and Jeter were on the Yankees prior doesn’t make them any less of a free agent signing then if they had been Astros.

      Take the names out of the equation, and this would be a pretty fun offseasosn.

    4. Raf
      February 23rd, 2011 | 1:35 am

      Bud needs a cup of STFU too.

    5. MJ Recanati
      February 23rd, 2011 | 8:10 am

      Corey Italiano wrote:

      It bothers me when people say the Yankees didn’t do anything this offseason…They signed the best shortstop and the top 2 closers on the market.

      Yes and no. The Yankees did something this offseason, they just didn’t improve their team which is what people are implying when they talk about “doing something.”

      And, frankly, signing Jeter and Soriano to those contracts was the wrong “something” to do. So one could certainly say that the offseason wasn’t particularly kind to the Yankees.

      Now, that doesn’t mean the Yankees will be a bad team in 2011 and it doesn’t mean doom and gloom are the order of the day. But I’m not buying that the Yankees had a “good” winter either.

    6. MJ Recanati
      February 23rd, 2011 | 8:11 am

      Raf wrote:

      Bud needs a cup of STFU too.

      Yep, but that’s been the case for years. He’s a crook and a shyster.

    7. agsf
      February 23rd, 2011 | 8:13 pm

      Corey Italiano wrote:

      They signed the best shortstop

      Haha. Hanley says hi. On no planet is Jeter the best shortstop in mlb. Do you mean the best shortstop available? That’s not saying much. 2010 jeter was basically Marco Scutaro plus the intangibles, and even the red sox are looking for an upgrade.

    8. Corey Italiano
      February 23rd, 2011 | 10:52 pm

      agsf wrote:

      Do you mean the best shortstop available?

      Obviously.

    9. MJ Recanati
      February 24th, 2011 | 8:46 am

      Corey Italiano wrote:

      Obviously

      Historically, yes, Jeter was the best available SS. I don’t know that he was truly the best SS available going forward, however. When you factor in the contract, he’s a pretty terrible signing.

    10. Corey Italiano
      February 24th, 2011 | 12:43 pm

      @ MJ Recanati:
      I didn’t say that Jeter was the best SS in baseball.

      I stand by the notion that signing Jeter was the best possible scenario for our SS vacancy this offseason. Nobody here thought he’d get a 1 year deal.

      Sure, there are better short stops out there. But is it the best use of prospects to deal a bunch of them out for a Hanley or Tulo? No, in my opinion, it isn’t. Especially for the Yankees where the money isn’t a big deal at all.

    11. MJ Recanati
      February 24th, 2011 | 1:39 pm

      @ Corey Italiano:
      You’re misunderstanding me. Miguel Tejada or Juan Uribe on a one year deal are better shortstops than Derek Jeter on a four year deal.

      My point is that Jeter ceases to be the “best available SS” (as you said) once you sign him to a long term deal at ridiculous money. There were marginally worse options out there that wouldn’t have cost prospects or the sort of money it took to keep Jeter in New York. I realize that’s sacrilege to some people but it’s nevertheless true. The Yankees could’ve easily survived losing Jeter and plowing that $17M into something else.

    12. MJ Recanati
      February 24th, 2011 | 1:40 pm

      @ MJ Recanati:
      In any case, it’s a moot point because Jeter is signed. For better or worse, the Yankees will have Jeter leading off and playing SS for at least another two years.

    13. Raf
      February 24th, 2011 | 2:18 pm

      Corey Italiano wrote:

      I stand by the notion that signing Jeter was the best possible scenario for our SS vacancy this offseason. Nobody here thought he’d get a 1 year deal.

      I dunno, there are players that can be acquired via trade and FA (natural shortstops and those who can move to the position). Or the position could be filled in house, be it Nuñez or Peña or ________ from the farm.

      The Yankees’ options weren’t/aren’t as limited as we’d like to think.

    14. MJ Recanati
      February 24th, 2011 | 3:10 pm

      Raf wrote:

      The Yankees’ options weren’t/aren’t as limited as we’d like to think.

      Agree completely.

      The Yankees signed Jeter out of a joint sense of duty and fear of negative PR. They certainly could’ve moved on without him, replaced him with either internal or external options and not been that much worse for wear on the diamond.

    15. Corey Italiano
      February 24th, 2011 | 6:06 pm

      Raf wrote:

      I dunno, there are players that can be acquired via trade and FA

      I disagree. All those players would cost an arm and a leg in prospects that are needed to be allocated to getting a pitcher. You’re ready to run Jeter out of town but give Nunez and Pena reps? They cannot hit.

    16. Raf
      February 24th, 2011 | 7:19 pm

      Corey Italiano wrote:

      Raf wrote:
      I dunno, there are players that can be acquired via trade and FA
      I disagree. All those players would cost an arm and a leg in prospects that are needed to be allocated to getting a pitcher. You’re ready to run Jeter out of town but give Nunez and Pena reps? They cannot hit.

      If you look at all the shortstops that have moved in MLB over any number of years, I don’t think any of them cost an arm and a leg in prospects.

      As for the pitching, they always become available during the season. The Yankees have managed to cobble together pitching staffs when arms have failed due to injury and or ineffectiveness. With that said, I think you’re underestimating the pitching staff.

      I’m not looking to run Jeter out of town, I’m just stating the obvious. The point is that there are plenty of options if a team decides to go in a certain direction. If Pena and Nunez can play superior defense, and can produce offense at a league average level then why shouldn’t the option be pursued? Epstien was laughed at for going with Orlando Cabrera over Nomar Garciaparra. That turned out ok. Remember how everyone was up in arms when the Yanks went with Joe Girardi over Mike Stanley? Ozzie Smith was a tremendous defender, for a while he couldn’t hit to save his life. Rey Ordonez washed out because not only did he stink with the bat, his glove was no great shakes either. If a team has a player that is exceptional on either side of the ball, they will find a place to play them. If they can’t hack it, the organization will find someone else, and will keep switching players out until they settle on someone. The Red Sox are doing that now with their shortstops. The Yankees did that after Bucky Dent was traded; look at who has played short from Dent to Jeter. It had gotten so bad that they signed Mike Gallego to play out of position. And they still wound up signing Spike Owen, then Tony Fernandez.

      Well constructed teams and organizations are fluid. It’s not so much that you look at Jeter (or anyone else for that matter) as a player, you look at him and how he relates to the organization and the philosophy they have. Better defense means they can do certain things with a player. Better offense means they can do other things with a player. All that relates to what the organization wants to do with the pitching. High K and flyball pitchers, you put less of a premium on defense. High groundball rates, you put more of a premium on defense. So on and so forth.

    17. Evan3457
      February 25th, 2011 | 2:10 am

      Maybe Bud should try this tactic with Hank:

      A reminder…

    18. Jim TreshFan
      February 25th, 2011 | 7:51 am

      Lucky thing for Hank CBS is running MLB. They don’t mess around:

      http://www.tvsquad.com/2011/02/24/charlie-sheen-cbs-shuts-down-two-half-men/?icid=main%7Chtmlws-main-n%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk3%7C203296

      Kind of makes you wish CBS owned the Yanks. Oh wait! Never mind. ;)

    19. Evan3457
      February 25th, 2011 | 10:40 am

      Completely off-topic:

      Baseball Prospectus’ PECOTA projection calls for the Yanks to be 91-71, and finish in 2nd in the East 2-3 games behind the Red Sox (Sox are projected to be 93.5-68.5).

      The Rays are currently projected to go 83-79, 8 games back of the Yanks. The Orioles: 80-92; the Jays: 74-88.

      PECOTA projects the AL to be unusually balanced in mediocrity, the Twins, Tigers, White Sox, Rangers and A’s are all projected for between 83-86 wins. The Angels, even with Kennedy coming back, are projected for 78 wins. So they project none of these teams will finish within 5 games of the Yanks, and put the Yanks’ playoff odds at roughly 70% to make the post-season.

      ============================================
      I rate that as slightly high, primarily because it is very unlikely that all 6 of the team ostensibly chasing the Yanks will stay in the 83-86 win range. By random chance, 1 or 2 should pop up to the 87-8 win range, and those that do will make in-season moves to get closer. On the other hand, the Yanks will likely do so as well.

      But I still think the Yanks have at least a 50/50 shot of making the post-season. With Cliff Lee, it would have been all but certain.

    20. MJ Recanati
      February 25th, 2011 | 4:17 pm

      @ Evan3457:
      You only give the Yanks a 50% chance of making the playoffs? I’d say they have a better shot than that.

    21. Corey Italiano
      February 25th, 2011 | 5:27 pm

      MJ Recanati wrote:

      You only give the Yanks a 50% chance of making the playoffs? I’d say they have a better shot than that.

      I concur.

    22. Evan3457
      February 25th, 2011 | 10:13 pm

      MJ Recanati wrote:

      @ Evan3457:
      You only give the Yanks a 50% chance of making the playoffs? I’d say they have a better shot than that.

      You might be right; I just think the Sox are better, so there goes the division winner slot. And I also think that at least 2 of the 5 teams I mentioned above will jump out of the 83-86 win pack to win at least 88-90, at that puts the wild card slot at hazard.

      If I had to rank them: White Sox win the Central, then Rays, Tigers, Twins and the Rangers/A’s loser.

    Leave a reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.