• Ivan Nova Good?

    Posted by on April 15th, 2011 · Comments (20)

    Is it just me, or, are Phil Hughes and Ivan Nova this month looking like Phil Hughes and Ian Kennedy did back at the start of 2008?

    Kevin Millwood and Carlos Silva, come on down…ugh.

    Comments on Ivan Nova Good?

    1. LMJ229
      April 15th, 2011 | 9:15 pm

      His lack of command killed him tonight and Robertson added fuel to the fire. The Rangers only got 4 lousy hits. That being said, he has got to find a way to get out of (and beyond) the fifth inning.

      At least the Bosox are losing again. Gotta love that.

    2. Raf
      April 15th, 2011 | 9:18 pm

      Nova didn’t have much of anything tonight, he was yanking too many pitches.

    3. Evan3457
      April 15th, 2011 | 10:26 pm

      Yes, of course.

      Let’s bury every young starter after 3, 6, 9 mediocre bad starts. That way, we can never, ever, ever develop any starters of our own.

      See who’s in the rotation, and pitching brilliantly for the Rangers right now? Matt Harrison, (Lifetime ERA in 33 starts over 3 seasons before this year: 5.65) and Derek Holland (Lifetime ERA in 31 starts over 2 seasons before this one: 5.73).

    4. LMJ229
      April 15th, 2011 | 10:31 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      See who’s in the rotation, and pitching brilliantly for the Rangers right now? Matt Harrison, (Lifetime ERA in 33 starts over 3 seasons before this year: 5.65) and Derek Holland (Lifetime ERA in 31 starts over 2 seasons before this one: 5.73).

      It’s not just the fans who are impatient. You know the Yankees would never stick with guys with those type of stats.

    5. Raf
      April 15th, 2011 | 10:52 pm

      LMJ229 wrote:

      You know the Yankees would never stick with guys with those type of stats.

      Then you have your answer as to why the Yankees haven’t developed many “star” players. ;)

    6. LMJ229
      April 17th, 2011 | 8:52 am

      Raf wrote:

      Then you have your answer as to why the Yankees haven’t developed many “star” players

      Excellent point. But its the GM you defend that are giving up on them if they don’t produce immediately.

    7. LMJ229
      April 17th, 2011 | 9:29 am

      @ Raf:
      And who, exactly, are those “star” players on other teams that the Yankees have given up on?

    8. Raf
      April 17th, 2011 | 9:38 am

      LMJ229 wrote:

      Raf wrote:
      Then you have your answer as to why the Yankees haven’t developed many “star” players
      Excellent point. But its the GM you defend that are giving up on them if they don’t produce immediately.

      Because there is more to the game than being a “star.” There have been many players in MLB history that weren’t stars, that doesn’t mean that they weren’t useful.

      The way the Yankees are run is that they give priority to veterans, and has been that way more often than not. This has been SOP since Steinbrenner bought the team.

    9. Raf
      April 17th, 2011 | 9:49 am

      LMJ229 wrote:

      @ Raf:
      And who, exactly, are those “star” players on other teams that the Yankees have given up on?

      What is your definition of a star player? All Star appearances?
      What is your definition of “given up on?” That a player is traded away, doesn’t necessarily mean that the organization gave up on them.

    10. LMJ229
      April 17th, 2011 | 2:31 pm

      Raf wrote:

      What is your definition of a star player? All Star appearances?

      OK, let’s forget about “star” players. How about we go with legitimate every-day type, starting players who have produced effectively for, say 4-5 years? Not the Cervelli types. I’m talking guys like Cano, Soriano, Wang. There, I gave you three names. Cashman has been the GM for 13 years now. Can you give me 3 more names?

    11. LMJ229
      April 17th, 2011 | 2:36 pm

      Raf wrote:

      What is your definition of “given up on?” That a player is traded away, doesn’t necessarily mean that the organization gave up on them.

      Agreed but it bothers me that they don’t give some guys a legitimate chance, like Austin Jackson or Ian Kennedy. And Austin Jackson was supposedly a 5-tool untouchable. My point is, the Yankees have been horrible at developing and keeping young players during Cashman’s tenure. Just look at our roster.

    12. Raf
      April 17th, 2011 | 5:25 pm

      LMJ229 wrote:

      How about we go with legitimate every-day type, starting players who have produced effectively for, say 4-5 years? Not the Cervelli types. I’m talking guys like Cano, Soriano, Wang. There, I gave you three names. Cashman has been the GM for 13 years now. Can you give me 3 more names?

      Well, there was Mike Lowell, but he was blocked by Brosius after he re-signed after the 98 season. Nick Johnson was there too, but he was blocked @ 1b by Jason Giambi, and went in the Vazquez trade. Juan Rivera also went in the Vazquez trade, he was blocked at either corner by Matsui and Sheffield. Dioner Navarro went in the Randy Johnson trade. Jake Westbrook, acquired from the Expos (with Ted Lilly) went in the David Justice trade, along with Ricky Ledee. Ted Lilly was flipped to the A’s (by way of Detroit) in the Jeff Weaver deal. Kennedy was flipped to the D-backs for Granderson. Melky Cabrera was flipped to the Braves for Vazquez.
      We have Chamberlain, who has been here since 2007. Same with Hughes.

      Again, what difference does it make if players are homegrown or not? In 1996, Jeter was flanked by free agents Wade Boggs and Mariano Duncan. He threw across the diamond to Tino Martinez, acquired from the M’s. Bernie Williams was flanked by Paul O’Neill, acquired from the Reds, and some combination of Darryl Strawberry, another free agent, and Tim Raines, acquired from the White Sox. The primary catcher? Joe Girardi, acquired from the Rockies. DH’s were Reuben Sierra, picked up from the A’s, and Cecil Fielder, picked up from the Tigers.

      The pitching staff in 1996?

      David Cone – Free Agent
      Kenny Rogers – Free Agent
      Jimmy Key – Free Agent
      Andy Pettitte – NDFA
      Dwight Gooden – Free Agent
      Ramiro Mendoza – IFA

      In the bullpen
      John Wetteland – Acquired from Expos
      Mariano Rivera – IFA
      Jeff Nelson – Acquired from the M’s
      Graeme Lloyd – Acquired from Brewers
      David Weathers – Acquired from Marlins

      So on and so forth… Again, the Yankees, more often than not will go with a proven veteran over someone on the farm. Guidry and Mattingly were the exceptions, not the rule.

    13. Raf
      April 17th, 2011 | 5:54 pm

      LMJ229 wrote:

      My point is, the Yankees have been horrible at developing and keeping young players during Cashman’s tenure.

      It isn’t a Cashman thing, it’s a Yankees thing. It was like that during the 70′s, 80′s, 90′s, 00′s and has continued into the 10′s.

      1993 was the year the Yankees jumped back into contention, for simplicity, we’ll go with baseball reference’s lineup

      C – Mike Stanley, FA
      1B – Don Mattingly, drafted
      2b – Pat Kelly, drafted
      SS – Spike Owen, FA
      3B – Wade Boggs, FA
      LF – Dion James, FA
      CF – Bernie Williams, IFA
      RF – Paul O’Neill, traded
      DH – Danny Tartabull, FA

      1/3 were in the NYY system. Whatever else the Yankees had, were bench contributors, Leyritz, Maas, etc

      Pitching Staff
      Jimmy Key – FA
      Jim Abbott – traded
      Melido Perez – traded
      Scott Kamienecki – drafted

      1/4 of the rotation were in the NYY system

      Steve Farr – FA
      Bob Wickman – traded
      Rich Monteleone – traded
      Bobby Munoz – drafted
      Steve Howe – FA

      2/5 of the bullpen were in the NYY system. Wickman started and relieved.

      The rest were flotsam and jetsam of ML rosters, along with a few prospects, with a few “names” thrown in.

      Just look at our roster.

      I see the roster. A mix of homegrown players, some solid contributors, a few stars and a few HOF players. Same as it ever was.

    14. LMJ229
      April 17th, 2011 | 8:49 pm

      @ Raf:
      Why are you going back to the early 90s? I am talking about BRIAN CASHMAN’S tenure. He took over in 1998. Just because we weren’t good at developing players in the 80s and early 90s doesn’t excuse Cashman for the past 13 years.

    15. LMJ229
      April 17th, 2011 | 9:05 pm

      Raf wrote:

      Again, what difference does it make if players are homegrown or not?

      It does make a difference. Look at your most successful teams. Home grown players are usually the cornerstone of the team.

      In my opinion, a GM has 3 major responsibilities:
      1) player devlopment
      2) trades
      3) free agent signings

      Cashman has done an OK job on #2 and #3 but a very poor job on #1 in my opinion. Come on Raf, I’m sure you had to look long and hard for those handful of names, some of which are marginal players at best. Do you really not care if our GM is successful at player development?

    16. Raf
      April 17th, 2011 | 10:26 pm

      LMJ229 wrote:

      Why are you going back to the early 90s? I am talking about BRIAN CASHMAN’S tenure. He took over in 1998. Just because we weren’t good at developing players in the 80s and early 90s doesn’t excuse Cashman for the past 13 years.

      Because, as I mentioned;
      Raf wrote:

      It isn’t a Cashman thing, it’s a Yankees thing. It was like that during the 70′s, 80′s, 90′s, 00′s and has continued into the 10′s.

      You have to look at context. Cashman is doing the same thing Watson, Michael, Piniella, Peterson, Thrift, or did. Show me a GM that didn’t spend the Yankees’ money. I don’t think one exists.

      And the Yankees were developing players; Willie McGee, Jose Rijo & Fred McGriff passed through the system. They had enough chips to land Rickey Henderson, for starters. They made plenty of trades using minor league prospects.

      LMJ229 wrote:

      Do you really not care if our GM is successful at player development?

      No, not really. If you look at the Yankees run from 1993 on up, (and before that if you want more years to play with), you’ll see more often than not, other players were brought in, be they free agents, salary dump trades, or “normal” baseball trades.

    17. LMJ229
      April 18th, 2011 | 8:28 pm

      @ Raf:
      Fair enough. If you don’t care about player development that is fine, I can see where you are coming from. But then you can’t complain if Cashman trades his good young prospects.

    18. Raf
      April 18th, 2011 | 9:33 pm

      @ LMJ229:
      I see where you’re coming from too; it’s nice to be able to cheer on your “own” players, and watch them grow. FWIW, I haven’t complained when a prospect has been traded (Granderson for Jackson/Kennedy), nor have I complained when prospects haven’t been traded (Hughes + _____ for Santana). Austin Jackson’s ceiling is/was Curtis Granderson, so why not trade the potential of the real thing, for the real thing?

      Another thing is that what we see is what the organization allows us to see. So while I may lament Chamberlain not starting, or Kennedy being buried, to name a couple examples, in the end, I’d have to give the organization the benefit of the doubt because they have much more information than we are privy to. Maybe Chamberlain’s stuff is watered down while starting. Maybe he did have a big head and didn’t prepare the way he should, and management is teaching him a lesson. Maybe they thought Kennedy’s stuff didn’t play in the AL, maybe they thought they could teach him a lesson about humility, maybe they thought he wouldn’t be able to sustain his stuff after surgery. Who knows?

    19. MJ Recanati
      April 19th, 2011 | 7:31 am

      LMJ229 wrote:

      And Austin Jackson was supposedly a 5-tool untouchable.

      That’s revisionist history. Austin Jackson was neither touted as a five-tool player nor as an untouchable commodity.

    20. MJ Recanati
      April 19th, 2011 | 7:38 am

      LMJ229 wrote:

      It does make a difference. Look at your most successful teams. Home grown players are usually the cornerstone of the team.

      That statement makes the assumption that all teams can and should operate by the same guiding principles. The Yankees are in a financial class by themselves and are in a small minority of teams that can afford, if they want, to build a team entirely of externally-developed players. While it’s certainly fair to question if that mode of team-building is best or most efficient it still doesn’t change the fact that, for all of their inefficiency, the Yankees are still extremely successful with the approach they’ve been taking since 1976 (spending money).

      The Royals, the Twins, the A’s, the Rockies, the Marlins…they need to make homegrown players the cornerstone of their team because it’s far more cost-efficient to do so. The Yankees could certainly stand to be more efficient but they clearly don’t need to be.

      I think for your comment to be true, you’d need all teams to be operating in the same financial landscape. Because the Yankees do not, your comment doesn’t hold up.

    Leave a reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.