• Feliciano, It’s The New Marte

    Posted by on March 28th, 2011 · Comments (14)

    The story.

    By the way, whatever happened to Damaso Marte?

    Comments on Feliciano, It’s The New Marte

    1. MJ Recanati
      March 28th, 2011 | 11:45 am

      Yep. If there’s one place I’ll gladly agree that Cashman falls short, it’s the stupid bullpen signings. I understand that Soriano wasn’t his atrocious mistake but this dud was, as were Marte and Farnsworth before him.

      Now, the mistake itself isn’t so crippling that the team can’t recover. But by no means should these types of mistakes have to occur every single year. Hedging against a Logan regression was a perfectly sensible act. Paying money to a guy whose arm is ready to fall off is not.

    2. Raf
      March 28th, 2011 | 1:10 pm

      @ MJ Recanati:
      I didn’t have a problem with the Feliciano signing, more with the contract itself.

      As for Marte, if he comes back, I’m more worried about Girardi’s machinations with 3 lefties in the pen. Also, unless he’s planning on going with a 15 man pitching staff, someone has to go;

      SP: CC, AJ, Hughes, Nova, Garcia
      RP: Mo, Soriano, Joba, Colon, Robertson, Logan, Feliciano

      Waiting in the wings: Millwood, Marte, Prior. And whatever prospects steps up during the season

    3. MJ Recanati
      March 28th, 2011 | 2:40 pm

      Raf wrote:

      As for Marte, if he comes back, I’m more worried about Girardi’s machinations with 3 lefties in the pen.

      It’s safer to assume that Marte won’t come back. I’m not saying it to be sarcastic, it’s just that his return is a longshot at this point.

      As for Millwood, I think he has an out clause on 5/1 so I doubt he ever pitches for the Yanks this year.

    4. Jim TreshFan
      March 28th, 2011 | 4:25 pm

      I don’t have any problem with signing Feliciano either. I always liked Brazil 66.

    5. LMJ229
      March 28th, 2011 | 9:27 pm

      Raf wrote:

      As for Marte, if he comes back, I’m more worried about Girardi’s machinations with 3 lefties in the pen.

      You said it Raf! Signing Marte was a big mistake by Cashmam who sometimes seems to get locked in on a guy and will not give up on him.

    6. Evan3457
      March 29th, 2011 | 1:11 am

      While it is generally not a good idea to sign relievers past 30 to big money multi-year contracts, there was nothing specifically concrete to recommend avoiding Feliciano.

      What I means is that he’s just come off three straight years of 80+ games with 63 IP or less, he was generally effective in all 3 seasons, he was not significantly worse in the 2nd half of the season last year (in terms of peripherals, anyway), and his 3.30 was ballooned by giving up 4 ER in his last 1 1/3 innings in his last 3 appearances of the season.

      There was no real reason to expect an arm injury from him, except for his age, I suppose.

    7. Evan3457
      March 29th, 2011 | 1:12 am

      LMJ229 wrote:

      Raf wrote:
      As for Marte, if he comes back, I’m more worried about Girardi’s machinations with 3 lefties in the pen.
      You said it Raf! Signing Marte was a big mistake by Cashmam who sometimes seems to get locked in on a guy and will not give up on him.

      That big mistake was very bad for 3 regular season, but they might not win the title in 2009 without Marte vs. the Phils lefty sluggers, especially Howard, in the World Series.

    8. MJ Recanati
      March 29th, 2011 | 7:33 am

      @ Evan3457:
      Marte helped them win a World Series, no doubt about it. That fact alone still doesn’t justify a three year contract when arbitration or a two year deal would’ve accomplished the same goal of having him on the team for 2009. They declined his 1Y/$4M option to triple the money and the years? That’s absurd.

      Now, again, it’s small money and a bullpen role so, in the grand scheme of things, it’s not a travesty. But on its face it was still one in a long line of bad bullpen decisions by a guy that still hasn’t learned from the Farnsworth mistake.

    9. Raf
      March 29th, 2011 | 8:14 am

      MJ Recanati wrote:

      But on its face it was still one in a long line of bad bullpen decisions by a guy that still hasn’t learned from the Farnsworth mistake.

      I dunno, it seems that it’s pretty consistent behavior from Cashman. The process that led to Farnsworth being signed is the same one that had the Yankees signing Stanton (preceded Cashman, but still), Quantrill, Gordon & Karsay.

    10. MJ Recanati
      March 29th, 2011 | 9:29 am

      Raf wrote:

      it seems that it’s pretty consistent behavior from Cashman

      I agree that it’s consistent behavior. That’s my point: he’s made the same mistake over and over. If you want to say that signing Stanton made sense, OK. If you want to say signing Farnsworth made sense, OK. But at what point do you start making the connection that 3Y/12M contracts for relievers isn’t working out and that you can fill those roles with internal options?

      Much as I hate #62 and much as I think Robertson is mediocre, they’re costing the team several million dollars less and performing just as well as Farnsworth did. So what’s the value to expensive bullpen arms that aren’t 9th inning guys?

    11. Raf
      March 29th, 2011 | 10:19 am

      MJ Recanati wrote:

      But at what point do you start making the connection that 3Y/12M contracts for relievers isn’t working out and that you can fill those roles with internal options?

      But it has worked out with Gordon & Stanton. Cashman has used internal options, he has used FA’s both cheap and expensive, he has picked up arms off the scrap heap.

    12. MJ Recanati
      March 29th, 2011 | 10:26 am

      Raf wrote:

      Cashman has used internal options, he has used FA’s both cheap and expensive, he has picked up arms off the scrap heap.

      All I’m saying is that arms off the scrap heap and internal options seem to not only work better but also can be kicked to the curb when their value has run out.

      Why pay a Farnsworth or a Marte (or a Soriano) to do something that can be done cheaper (and better) via alternate means?

    13. Evan3457
      March 29th, 2011 | 4:26 pm

      MJ Recanati wrote:

      @ Evan3457:
      Marte helped them win a World Series, no doubt about it. That fact alone still doesn’t justify a three year contract when arbitration or a two year deal would’ve accomplished the same goal of having him on the team for 2009. They declined his 1Y/$4M option to triple the money and the years? That’s absurd.
      Now, again, it’s small money and a bullpen role so, in the grand scheme of things, it’s not a travesty. But on its face it was still one in a long line of bad bullpen decisions by a guy that still hasn’t learned from the Farnsworth mistake.

      I dunno.
      Flags fly forever. $13 million over 3 years ain’t $20 million over 5 years plus a $25 million posting fee. It’s a lot easier to recover from the former, rather than the latter.

      I’m not saying the Marte moved “worked”. What I’m saying is: the Yanks, then, as now, had no good internal options for a LOOGY, so they had to top the market for one.

    14. MJ Recanati
      March 29th, 2011 | 6:33 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      Flags fly forever.

      That’s absolutely true.

      Evan3457 wrote:

      I’m not saying the Marte moved “worked”. What I’m saying is: the Yanks, then, as now, had no good internal options for a LOOGY, so they had to top the market for one.

      They had him on a 1Y/$4M option. They could’ve easily kept him on the team for the 2009 season on that deal and revisited him last winter. There was absolutely no pressure on them to sign him when they had a perfectly valid and reasonable contract in their control.

      Again, I want to make clear that I’m not trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. It’s a pittance in the grand scheme of things. My point is the decision-making process, not the results. The process by which Cashman handles his bullpen free agency decision is curious at best.

    Leave a reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.