• The Yankees 2013 Plan

    Posted by on December 13th, 2012 · Comments (72)

    Jon Paul Morosi takes a look at it.

    Here’s a big snip of what he wrote:

    Over the past month, the New York Yankees have invested $49 million in one-year contracts for four free agents: Hiroki Kuroda, Andy Pettitte, Mariano Rivera and most recently Kevin Youkilis. That is close to what the Oakland Athletics spent on an entire division-winning roster this year. But even after handing out that sum of money, the Yankees can’t argue that they are better now than they were when the Detroit Tigers swept them out of the American League Championship Series.

    Pettitte turns 41 in June. Kuroda will be 38 by the time spring training begins. The Yankees hope each is as good in 2013 as he was this year.

    Rivera is coming off a catastrophic knee injury. He’s the greatest closer of all time. He’s also 43 years old. It’s hard to imagine the 2013 Rivera will be better than the 2012 Rafael Soriano, who recorded 42 saves with a 2.26 ERA and is now a free agent.

    Youkilis? He is the early-season — and maybe full-season — replacement for Alex Rodriguez at third base. Prior to his farcical postseason, A-Rod had an above-average 2012 by the diminishing standards of major league third basemen. His OPS was .783. The mean was .753.

    Youkilis’ was .745.

    So, again, let’s ask the question: How have the Yankees improved this winter?

    The answer is they haven’t.

    For Yankees fans, the near- and medium-term outlooks are unsettling. The team’s next move will probably be re-signing Ichiro Suzuki to play right field. Ichiro performed well in New York — a .794 OPS — after coming over from Seattle in a July trade. But he’s no longer a difference-maker at age 39.

    Ichiro is expected to sign a one-year contract. Notice a trend?

    The Yankees are headed for the Bronx version of the Fiscal Cliff. Hal Steinbrenner has made public his intent to keep the payroll below the $189 million luxury tax threshold beginning in 2014. This is the transition year, as the Yankees are trying to shoehorn their extravagant past and austere present within the confines of a 25-man roster. The result is a tighter fit than a Manhattan studio apartment.

    The strategy of general manager Brian Cashman has been to slightly overpay free agents on one-year contracts in order to keep them off the books for 2014. That has prevented the Yankees from signing high-dollar, multiyear free agents — so far. (We must leave open the possibility that the Old Yankees return, delivering Josh Hamilton and Anibal Sanchez on the very same day.)

    The Yankees, coming off a season in which they led the American League with 95 wins, will compete for the division title in 2013. They are going to carry a payroll of around $200 million — once more, for old time’s sake — and should benefit from salary drives for free-agents-to-be Robinson Cano and Curtis Granderson. But it appears they won’t fulfill the longtime Steinbrenner mandate: dominate the offseason back pages and drink champagne in October.

    The problem, such as it is, will be exacerbated at this time next year. To build a championship team around the enormous contracts of Rodriguez, Mark Teixeira, CC Sabathia and Derek Jeter, Cashman will need homegrown players on reasonable salaries — players like Austin Jackson, Ian Kennedy and Phil Coke, who were traded for Granderson three years ago.

    It’s not that Cashman made a mistake by acquiring Granderson. He finished fourth in the AL MVP balloting last year and has hit the most home runs in baseball over the past two seasons. But Granderson was the archetype for the Yankees’ old model; if they missed Jackson, Kennedy and Coke, well, they could blow up the budget and buy replacements.

    No more, Hal says. So, what was the correct decision under the old rules could be scored an E-Cashman one year from now.

    It’s hard to argue with any of this, in my opinion. What do you think?

    Comments on The Yankees 2013 Plan

    1. McMillan
      December 15th, 2012 | 2:38 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      A team can objectively “lose” a trade based on long-term considerations such as total WAR, and still win it if it results in a title or multiple titles. Under such circumstances, a trade can fail to be great by the standard of “great” trades such as you mention, but still be great if it substantially helps a team win a title.
      Here’s an analogous case in a free-agent signing…by objective standards, the signing of Damaso Marte to a 3 year-deal after the 2008 season could judged a “disastrous blunder” by Cashman, if you look at the money spent and the value returned during the 2009-2011 seasons.
      However, that blunder clearly helped the Yankees win the title in 2009, as Marte got healthy for one brief period, and was probably the only reliever other than Rivera (and arguably Robertson) who was reliably effective in that post-season. He neutralized opposing LH hitters in all 3 rounds, and got key outs in the World Series vs. both Howard and Utley.

      I see your point, but I disagree that a trade can be considered the equivalent of any of the trades referenced for the periods 1972-78, 1992-97 by virtue of one postseason performance by a relief pitcher. Was Doyle-Pryor-for-Alomar the equivalent of any of the trades? Three years after the trade was made Marte-Nady-for-Tabata-Karstens-Ohlendorf-McCutchen was not considered a good trade. And three years after the Granderson-for-Kennedy-Jackson-Coke trade was made, it probably can not be considered a good trade – perhaps a mistake, perhaps not a mistake, but probably not a good trade. If Granderson’s performance had been more consistent, the team had won at least one or two pennants and he had been instrumental in its postseason success, and he had been signed to a contract extension to play more years in center field…

    2. Raf
      December 15th, 2012 | 2:53 pm

      McMillan wrote:

      Cone was acquired in a “great” trade from Toronto in 1995, a trade Cashman has not come close to equalling in 15+ yrs. as a general manager.

      A high salaried player on a team going nowhere given up for spare parts? Pick one; Knoblauch, Justice, Abreu…

      Lloyd was such an “embarrassment” that Toronto insisted on his inclusion in Cashman’s “greatest” trade: the one for Clemens.

      Trade With Milwaukee Is Leaving A Sour Taste
      http://articles.courant.com/1996-08-31/sports/9608310441_1_trade-utility-player-pat-listach-cortisone

      Lloyd Hearing Set Oct. 28
      http://articles.courant.com/1996-09-26/sports/9609260369_1_yankee-stadium-playoff-tickets-yankees-manager-joe-torre

    3. McMillan
      December 15th, 2012 | 4:15 pm

      Raf wrote:

      A high salaried player on a team going nowhere given up for spare parts? Pick one; Knoblauch, Justice, Abreu…

      Pick one? Any of the Knoblauch, Justice, or Abreu trades was better than Cone-for-Janzen-Jarvis-Gordon? David Cone was nothing more than a “high-salaried player?” Not one of these three trades even approaches an equivalent of the Cone-for-Janzen-Jarvis-Gordon deal – “Cashman has not made one trade in more than fifteen years as a general manager that is the equivalent of any of the great trades of the ‘Steinbrenner Era’ associated with the championship teams of the periods 1976-78 or 1996-2000 or previous G.M.s.”
      MJ Recanati wrote:

      A move can be the right one to make but it isn’t great because it doesn’t involve getting something for nothing?

      Raf wrote:

      You have no idea as to what constitutes a great trade, so I don’t know why you keep harping on that point.

      I believe Cone for “spare parts” is sufficiently close to getting something for nothing so as to constitute a great trade.
      Raf wrote:

      Trade With Milwaukee Is Leaving A Sour Taste
      http://articles.courant.com/1996-08-31/sports/9608310441_1_trade-utility-player-pat-listach-cortisone
      Lloyd Hearing Set Oct. 28
      http://articles.courant.com/1996-09-26/sports/9609260369_1_yankee-stadium-playoff-tickets-yankees-manager-joe-torre

      The player was injured; a grievance was filed. Lloyd postseason record with N.Y.: 1-0; 0.00 E.R.A.; 13 G; 8 I.P.; 6 S.O.; 0 B.B. Lloyd’s regular season record from 1997-1999? And he was a part of of one of Cashman’s “greatest” trades, was he not?

    4. McMillan
      December 15th, 2012 | 4:26 pm

      @ Raf:
      “The problem, such as it is, will be exacerbated at this time next year. To build a championship team around the enormous contracts of Rodriguez, Mark Teixeira, CC Sabathia and Derek Jeter, Cashman will need homegrown players on reasonable salaries… Granderson was the archetype for the Yankees’ old model; if they missed Jackson, Kennedy and Coke, well, they could blow up the budget and buy replacements.”

      “Pitching, manager and coaching staff,” Giants general manager Brian Sabean said. “If you have strength and stability there it allows you to re-invent yourself like we have.

    5. Raf
      December 15th, 2012 | 5:46 pm

      McMillan wrote:

      David Cone was nothing more than a “high-salaried player?

      Hired Gun David Cone?

      http://articles.nydailynews.com/1995-07-29/sports/17976419_1_yankee-uniform-jason-jarvis-trades

      “We stayed away from our top prospects,” said Yanks GM Gene Michael. “We didn’t want to give up a player who can help us now.”

      Cone went to Toronto from Kansas City on April 6 for three minor-leaguers and was 9-6 with a 3.38 ERA for the Jays. But when Toronto fell into last place in the AL East, they decided to unload his $6-million salary and began talks with a number of teams, including the Yanks.

      Those prospects were spare parts;

      Marty Janzen: 22 years old in AA
      Jason Jarvis: 21 in A-ball
      Mike Gordon: 22 in A-ball

      http://articles.nydailynews.com/1995-07-30/sports/17989310_1_gm-gene-michael-yankees-gm-gerry-hunsicker

      “The Yankees were holding the the best hand. They had more pitching prospects than any team in baseball and were willing to take on more money. The Red Sox were tapped out for pitching prospects after they traded (Frankie) Rodriguez, and neither the Reds or Mariners could do a Cone deal without moving money to Toronto.”

      As for taking on the extra payroll in Cone, Steinbrenner felt he could justify that because, luckily, he had insurance policies on both Jimmy Key and Melido Perez. If they miss the rest of the season, the Yankees don’t lose anything.

      Sidebar: Insurance? That explains a lot about Pavano…

    6. Raf
      December 15th, 2012 | 5:51 pm

      McMillan wrote:

      “The problem, such as it is, will be exacerbated at this time next year. To build a championship team around the enormous contracts of Rodriguez, Mark Teixeira, CC Sabathia and Derek Jeter, Cashman will need homegrown players on reasonable salaries…

      Maybe, maybe not, there’s no guarantees any of the players listed will even be here next year.

      http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/NYY/2012-roster.shtml

    7. McMillan
      December 15th, 2012 | 6:43 pm

      Raf wrote:

      McMillan wrote:
      David Cone was nothing more than a “high-salaried player?
      Hired Gun David Cone?
      http://articles.nydailynews.com/1995-07-29/sports/17976419_1_yankee-uniform-jason-jarvis-trades
      “We stayed away from our top prospects,” said Yanks GM Gene Michael. “We didn’t want to give up a player who can help us now.”
      Cone went to Toronto from Kansas City on April 6 for three minor-leaguers and was 9-6 with a 3.38 ERA for the Jays. But when Toronto fell into last place in the AL East, they decided to unload his $6-million salary and began talks with a number of teams, including the Yanks.
      Those prospects were spare parts;
      Marty Janzen: 22 years old in AA
      Jason Jarvis: 21 in A-ball
      Mike Gordon: 22 in A-ball
      http://articles.nydailynews.com/1995-07-30/sports/17989310_1_gm-gene-michael-yankees-gm-gerry-hunsicker
      “The Yankees were holding the the best hand. They had more pitching prospects than any team in baseball and were willing to take on more money. The Red Sox were tapped out for pitching prospects after they traded (Frankie) Rodriguez, and neither the Reds or Mariners could do a Cone deal without moving money to Toronto.”
      As for taking on the extra payroll in Cone, Steinbrenner felt he could justify that because, luckily, he had insurance policies on both Jimmy Key and Melido Perez. If they miss the rest of the season, the Yankees don’t lose anything.
      Sidebar: Insurance? That explains a lot about Pavano…
      R

      The point of all of this is that Michael made the trade for Cone without giving up one of his top prospects but took on $6 mil. in payroll in the process, and this was not a “great” trade on N.Y.’s part as much as it was a salary dump on the part of Tor.? “Revisionist history?” That’s an interesting spin; however, it is not supported by the background of the transaction. And there is no set of circumstances relevant to both the Cone trade and one of the worst free agent contract signings in the team’s history: Carl Pavano. That is, if I understand the point correctly.

    8. McMillan
      December 15th, 2012 | 6:44 pm

      Raf wrote:

      McMillan wrote:
      “The problem, such as it is, will be exacerbated at this time next year. To build a championship team around the enormous contracts of Rodriguez, Mark Teixeira, CC Sabathia and Derek Jeter, Cashman will need homegrown players on reasonable salaries…
      Maybe, maybe not, there’s no guarantees any of the players listed will even be here next year.

      Where do you think Jeter might end up next year?

    9. Raf
      December 15th, 2012 | 8:24 pm

      McMillan wrote:

      That’s an interesting spin; however, it is not supported by the background of the transaction.

      It’s not spin, the facts are right there in front of you. The articles specifically mentioned salary.

      At the end of the day, Cone was making a lot of money on a team going nowhere. The Yanks needed pitching. The Jays needed salary relief. A deal was made.

      Bobby Abreu was making a lot of money on a team going nowhere. The Yanks needed an OF’er. The Phils needed salary relief. A deal was made.

      http://www.nytimes.com/1994/02/10/sports/baseball-yankees-strengthen-rotation-with-mulholland.html?src=pm

      Excluding the economics, it was a splendid deal for the Yankees because they made their rotation much more formidable by adding the left-handed Mulholland and because they did not sacrifice their prized Class AAA pitching prospects.

      “I’m assuming we can probably get a deal worked out,” said Joe Bick, Mulholland’s agent, who asked for a three-year deal with a no-trade clause from Philadelphia and was rebuffed because the Phillies want to trim their payroll.

      A couple more instances where the trading team wanted to cut payroll.

      http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19951205&slug=2156184

      Seattle figures to save about $3 million by trading Martinez, who is expected to get that much in contract settlement or salary arbitration. If Nelson is included, it could save $1 million more since he is also arbitration-eligible.

      http://articles.nydailynews.com/1995-12-03/sports/17986200_1_yankees-free-agent-market-tino-martinez

      Yankee management, after looking over the free-agent market and finding Fred McGriff (who last night agreed to a four-year deal with the Braves) and Mark Grace too expensive, stepped up efforts to trade for Martinez, who is only available because the Mariners are under orders to shed some $4 million off their payroll.

      Apparently, there will be two other players in the deal that will enable the Mariners to shed even more payroll. But in Martinez, who is due a huge raise in arbitration this winter to nearly $3 million, the Yankees get themselves a bonafide lefthanded power hitter at first base.

      The inclusion of Pavano was a throwaway line about insurance picking up the tab for his salary, as was the case with Melido Perez & Jimmy Key. It will probably the case with Alex Rodriguez.

      McMillan wrote:

      Where do you think Jeter might end up next year?

      Don’t know, anything can happen. He may decide to hang it up, he may be mauled by a bunch of supermodels and never be able to play again. He may decide he wants to bring his legend to NPB and signs with the Tokyo Giants. The overall point is that anything can happen and worrying that a problem “may be exacerbated” with the 2014 team is folly because a lot can happen between now and opening day 2014.

    10. McMillan
      December 15th, 2012 | 9:29 pm

      Raf wrote:

      It’s not spin, the facts are right there in front of you. The articles specifically mentioned salary.

      Would it be possible for you to bottom line this for me, because there is a lot of material here, and I am having some difficulty connecting the dots from where this discussion began – Cashman’s non-existent record as a first or even third-tier general manager as compared to the records of general managers from Quinn to Watson, to Melido Perez, Terry Mulholland, Fred McGriff, Mark Grace, and the team’s insurance policy on Carl Pavano?
      Raf wrote:

      A couple more instances where the trading team wanted to cut payroll.

      Piniella was critical of Seattle’s executive management in the deal because he felt the team could have gotten more from Watson AND DID NOT – a fact you either were not aware of or omitted above.
      Raf wrote:

      McMillan wrote:
      Where do you think Jeter might end up next year?
      Don’t know, anything can happen. He may decide to hang it up, he may be mauled by a bunch of supermodels and never be able to play again. He may decide he wants to bring his legend to NPB and signs with the Tokyo Giants. The overall point is that anything can happen and worrying that a problem “may be exacerbated” with the 2014 team is folly because a lot can happen between now and opening day 2014.

      My comment was not meant to be taken seriously or literally. And as I indicated in an earlier post, I agree with the author’s point that not anything can happen.

    11. LMJ229
      December 15th, 2012 | 11:56 pm

      Raf wrote:

      So then why are you giving credit to Watson for laying the groundwork, and not Steinbrenner?

      I wasn’t trying to give Watson the credit, my point was that the trade was a done deal before Cashman became the GM. You want to give the credit to George then fine, go ahead. Sounds like you’re not willing to give Michael or Watson any credit though.

    12. Raf
      December 16th, 2012 | 11:16 am

      LMJ229 wrote:

      I wasn’t trying to give Watson the credit, my point was that the trade was a done deal before Cashman became the GM. You want to give the credit to George then fine, go ahead. Sounds like you’re not willing to give Michael or Watson any credit though.

      Probably as much as you don’t want to give Cashman any credit. 😉

      My point is, and has been that Cashman is doing the same thing Watson and Michael has done. You’ve been here long enough to see that Cashman’s best trades are dinged because they’re salary dumps. Well, as per the links above, the Cone & Martinez deals were salary dumps. Cashman has done terrible with 1st round draft picks. Well, other than Derek Jeter, other first round picks made by Watson & Michael? Brien Taylor, Matt Drews, Tyrell Godwin, & Ryan Bradley. But Cashman inherited the team from Watson and Michael! Yeah, but they inherited their players from previous regimes. Cashman uses free agency! Yeah, so did Michael and Watson…

      I find the blind “Cashman hate” on this site amusing, and has little traction when stacked against other Yankees GMs. 😛

    13. McMillan
      December 16th, 2012 | 6:05 pm

      Raf wrote:

      My point is, and has been that Cashman is doing the same thing Watson and Michael has done.

      A point that has not been, or can not be, substantiated.
      Raf wrote:

      Well, as per the links above, the Cone & Martinez deals were salary dumps.

      So Cashman simply has not had an opportunity to equal the Cone or Martinez trades in “salary dumps?” Well, its only been 16 years. And why was Piniella upset for quite a period of time at how little value Seattle’s G.M. received in return in this “salary dump?” Piniella felt Seattle should have been able to negotiate with Watson the acquisition of Jorge Posada in this “salary “dump” of Martinez, Nelson, and Mecir.
      Raf wrote:

      Cashman has done terrible with 1st round draft picks.

      Correct.
      Raf wrote:

      Cashman inherited the team from Watson and Michael!

      Correct.
      Raf wrote:

      [B]ut they inherited their players from previous regimes.

      The records of Quinn, Peterson, and Sabean in comparison to Cashman’s “record” as a third-tier G.M. are certainly open for discussion as well.
      Raf wrote:

      Cashman uses free agency!

      That’s because “[talent evaluation is not one of his strengths]. [He’s] an administrator. [He’s] a good listener. [He] would not pass [himself] off as an evaluator of talent.”
      Raf wrote:

      I find the blind “Cashman hate” on this site amusing…

      Some find the “Cashman romances” amusing, both on this site and on the front pages of the New York tabloids.
      Raf wrote:

      [Blind “Cashman hate”] has little traction when stacked against other Yankees GMs.

      A point that has not been, or can not be, substantiated. In regard to other M.L.B. G.M.s: Why is it that Cashman is always on the losing end of deals with Dombrowski?

    14. Evan3457
      December 16th, 2012 | 10:06 pm

      McMillan wrote:

      See Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 301; “Presumptions governed by this rule are given the effect of placing upon the opposing party the burden of establishing the nonexistence of the presumed fact, once the party invoking the presumption establishes the basic facts giving rise to it.”

      Hey, this ain’t a court of law. Legal definitions don’t apply here. If you have any evidence to back up your contention that Cashman is “actively shopping” Granderson, bring it. Otherwise, stow the claim
      Evan3457 wrote:
      The value the Yanks got equaled the value they gave up, and Clemens helped pitch the Yanks to two more titles and four more pennants before he left the team.
      I did not write that the team did not get the value that the team gave up; I wrote that it was not a trade that equalled any of those that I had listed.
      Evan3457 wrote:
      a trade can fail to be great by the standard of “great” trades such as you mention, but still be great if it substantially helps a team win a title.
      This is not inconsistent with what was written.

      Okey dokey.

    15. McMillan
      December 17th, 2012 | 7:16 pm

      Raf wrote:

      A lot can change from now to 2014, we’ve been going through this exercise for a few years now, and the Yanks have yet to bottom out.

      “We would like to keep our payroll at just under $190 million. It will be tough,” Cashman said, “but we’re committed to tightening our belts around here…”

      Final 2012 payrolls for all major-league teams, according to information received from the commissioner’s office; parts of salaries that are deferred are discounted to reflect present-day values.
      N.Y. Yankees: $223,302,212
      Philadelphia: $169,728,180
      Boston: $168,614,614
      L.A. Angels: $160,146,581
      Detroit: $140,701,213
      San Francisco: $138,149,994

    16. Raf
      December 17th, 2012 | 7:28 pm

      McMillan wrote:

      “We would like to keep our payroll at just under $190 million. It will be tough,” Cashman said, “but we’re committed to tightening our belts around here…”

      http://www.baseballprospectus.com/a/15744

    17. McMillan
      December 17th, 2012 | 7:37 pm

      @ Raf:
      “Just because a GM approves of a move and looks pleased at a press conference doesn’t mean it’s going to be a success. Case in point: Cashman again, this time in 2004.”

    18. McMillan
      September 21st, 2013 | 3:39 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      If you have any evidence to back up your contention that Cashman is “actively shopping” Granderson, bring it. Otherwise, stow the claim

      @ Evan3457:
      “Despite four current vacancies in the Yankees lineup, there’s a chance a fifth could open up in the coming weeks.

      According to a source, the Yankees have been quietly shopping Curtis Granderson since the beginning of November, though no deal is imminent.”

      http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/yankees/winter-winds-bode-ill-granderson-days-yank-ee-article-1.1213629

      Good move not trading Granderson: I’ve really enjoyed watching him whiff better than once-per-game in his third-of-a-season on a team with no farm system.

    19. Evan3457
      September 21st, 2013 | 8:29 pm

      McMillan wrote:

      Evan3457 wrote:
      If you have any evidence to back up your contention that Cashman is “actively shopping” Granderson, bring it. Otherwise, stow the claim
      @ Evan3457:
      “Despite four current vacancies in the Yankees lineup, there’s a chance a fifth could open up in the coming weeks.
      According to a source, the Yankees have been quietly shopping Curtis Granderson since the beginning of November, though no deal is imminent.”
      http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/yankees/winter-winds-bode-ill-granderson-days-yank-ee-article-1.1213629
      Good move not trading Granderson: I’ve really enjoyed watching him whiff better than once-per-game in his third-of-a-season on a team with no farm system.

      And we all know how reliable the Daily News’ “sources” within the Yankee organization have been about team policies. Which is to say, not at all. You, or one of your “brethren” cited this before, and as you can see, they sure did trade Granderson in the offseason, didn’t they? And even if it were true, “quietly shopping” is the same as “actively shopping”?
      And since you appear to believe Granderson’s value is quite limited, what do you think trading him would’ve brought that’s superior to the value of the pick they’ll get for giving him a qualifying offer. (I’m assuming they’ll make a qualifying offer. I could be wrong about that.)

      As he is, Granderson is outhitting Wells and Suzuki, and because of Gardner’s injury, is now starting everyday in centerfield.

    20. Mr. October
      September 22nd, 2013 | 7:54 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      You, or one of your “brethren” cited this before, and as you can see, they sure did trade Granderson in the offseason, didn’t they?

      @ Evan3457:
      It was great to be at The Stadium today to watch Kurtis Granderson go down on strikes three times in one of the most historic games of this illustrious franchise, and one of the most important games of the season – a 2-1 defeat – so I, for one, am without question grateful Granderson wasn’t traded in the offseason.

      It would have been nice to see Pettitte and Rivera go out on a winning note, but it was nicer to have Kurtis Granderson in the lineup on balance.

      Evan3457 wrote:

      And even if it were true, “quietly shopping” is the same as “actively shopping”?

      “Active shopping” can be either quiet or not quiet; because it’s quiet does not make it not active.

      Evan3457 wrote:

      As he is, Granderson is outhitting Wells and Suzuki, and because of Gardner’s injury, is now starting everyday in centerfield.

      LOL: “because of Gardner’s injury.” His average is 4 whole points higher this year than in 2012: .236 to .232. He’s not outhitting Wells and Suzuki.

    21. Evan3457
      September 23rd, 2013 | 2:39 am

      Mr. October wrote:

      LOL: “because of Gardner’s injury.” His average is 4 whole points higher this year than in 2012: .236 to .232. He’s not outhitting Wells and Suzuki.

      LMAO: Uh, no, he IS outhitting them, OPS by about 100 points over both, even with his recent slump. And both of them have also been slumping lately. (Suzuki is 15 for his last 80; Wells is 4 for 25.)

      And neither of them is physically capable of playing center field anymore, so that point is moot.

    22. McMillan
      October 21st, 2013 | 11:07 pm

      Raf wrote:

      You have no idea as to what constitutes a great trade, so I don’t know why you keep harping on that point.

      @ Raf:
      Who do like in the World Series, Raf? Cherington or Mozeliak?

    Leave a reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.