The Yankees 2013 Plan
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?
I guess I don’t see his point. Signing one-year contracts is bad because the Yankees are spending more in one-year deals than the A’s are spending for the whole season? So? How is that revelatory?
Should the Yankees be doing the opposite? Should they be signing players for five years instead of one? No? Then what has this article accomplished other than pointing out the obvious?
I think, what he is saying, is that the Yankees, and Cashman, need to get their payroll down in 2014. But, they don’t have the players coming up, to support that – and they need that cheap support since they have so many big contract guys on the roster. And, that, Cashman lacked the foresight – shocking! – on that when he traded for guys like Granderson.
…Also, that these high priced one-year old guy band aids for this year might work, but, it’s not going to change what’s going to happen in 2014.
Taking this approach, what was the point of paying Mo and Andy? So they get to go out on a ‘low note’? Of course the article is out of template of Yankee articles, ‘Damned when they do, damned if they don’t’.
KPOcala wrote:
Yep, pretty much. I don’t know who invented this template but if you had substituted Lupica for Morosi in the by-line, it wouldn’t have surprised me at all.
Steve L. wrote:
Trading for Granderson wasn’t a lack of foresight, it was simply accelerating Austin Jackson’s potential for a player that could help the Yankees in the more immediate timeframe.
As usual, you’re infurated when the Yankees don’t win the World Series but similarly infuriated when the Yankees make the moves necessary to maintain the current pace of winning.
Move the goalposts again. Bravo.
“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.” “General Manager” Brian Cashman has put the team in the position of having to slightly overpay free agents to one-year contracts out of necessity, not strategy, in order to keep the free agents off the books for 2014 and keep the team “competitive” in the 2013 season – the 2013 regular season.
“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.” It was a mistake: a .232 avg., franchise record 195-strikeout season, and .100 avg. postseason avg. in 2012; the team surrendered talent such as Jackson and Kennedy and was actively trying to trade Granderson less than 3 years after the deal and still is.
“So, what was the correct decision under the old rules could be scored an E-Cashman one year from now.” An “E-Steinbrenner” for having given Cashman a contract extension.
Steve L. wrote:
Ooooh, nice hindsight, as the trade for Granderson was made BEFORE the new Basic Agreement was signed.
McMillan wrote:
Granderson was still a better than average player despite the huge slump in the 2nd half last year. Is Cashman actively trying to trade Granderson? There’s no actual proof of this.
Re: Jackson…the Yanks almost certainly would not have gone into the season in 2010 with a starting outfield of Gardner, Jackson and Swisher. Gardner was been given the starting job for the first time, and the Yanks projected Jackson to be a 2nd very low power hitter.
Granderson was 4th in the MVP voting in 2011, and hit quite decently in the ALDS in 2011, one of the few Yankees to do so.
He may well come back and have a considerably better season this season.
Evan3457 wrote:
Yep.
To contend now that the Granderson trade was a mistake is beyond me. At the time, Coke was an okay reliever (still is) and Kennedy was just plain rotting away on the farm, having imploded repeatedly when asked to pitch in the Bronx. Jackson was low power, high strikeout and did not fit with the Yanks plans for at least 2 years. They gave up parts that helped them very little and in return they got what may very well amount to Granderson’s career best value seasons.
Evan3457 wrote:
I did not write that he was an average player; I disagreed with the article’s author that the trade was not a mistake. What are the 3 best trades Cashman has made in 15 years as G.M.? Perhaps if the record were better: 1. the Granderson trade would be of less significance or the “problem, such as it is,” would not exist; or 2. statements such as the following would not be published: “Yankees general manager Brian Cashman’s biggest trade of last season: An identity swap for his pregnant girlfriend… Neathway claimed [Cashman] secured her a phony ID before arranging for [a medical procedure] last summer.”
Evan3457 wrote:
There would appear to be more proof of Cashman’s activity in trying to trade Granderson than proof of Neathway’s “preganacy [sic]” in trying to get Cashman to pay for a “medical procedure” – and Cashman paid for the “medical procedure.”
Evan3457 wrote:
Agree. What are the 3 best trades Cashman has made in 15 years as G.M.?
Evan3457 wrote:
Therefore the author was incorrect in stating the Granderson trade was not a mistake: Granderson may well come back and have a considerably worse season this season.
McMillan wrote:
Well 2 of them were to get Swisher and Abreu for a bag of baseballs. I think Chacon is right up there as well. Trading for Kerry Wood at the deadline, not bad, same goes for Ichiro.
@ Greg H.:
Trading for Clemens, trading for Knoblauch, trading for Justice, trading for Rodriguez…
Thank you MJ , that was off the top of my head. Actually comparing Soriano’s and Rodriguez’ performances after that trade makes that one look about as good as his current contract looks bad.
@ Greg H.:
If Swisher is the best trade, then the best trade that this G.M. has made in over 15 years with a team having the highest payroll in baseball in each season throughout that period (Bal. spending $200K more in 1998) is one for a right-fielder that remained with the team for 4 seasons, did not hit higher than .288 in any of those seasons, and was statistically the worst postseason hitter in the franchise’s considerable history. Abreu was a very good trade and he played less than 3 seasons for the team. Chacon, Wood, and Suzuki in 15 years as the G.M. of the N.Y. Yankees? That sums it sup.
@ McMillan:
Why, exactly, does it matter how long a player stays in New York after he’s traded here? David Justice only played 189 games as a member of the Yankees but he was clearly an excellent addition to the team.
To judge the success (or quality) of a trade on the duration of a player’s stay seems as imprecise a measurement as judging a player’s productivity by looking at batting average.
@ McMillan:
So, you’re saying that the Swisher trade was not notable?
Look, if you’ve decided that Cashman is an idiot, I’m not going to change your mind. However he, like all GMs has made good moves and bad moves. But to say he’s terrible is ignoring the obvious – his teams go to the playoffs almost every year – and he works in what everyone acknowledges is the most difficult market. I wouldn’t say that he is the best, but certainly he is far from the worst, and when you think that 15 years of Cashman and the team making the playoffs is probably better than a revolving door and a circus in the organization, with Hank, Hal, Randy and Lonn micromanaging the team to death.
For Clemens, the team traded away a left-handed starting pitcher that went 18-4 in the previous season and won 37 games for Tor. in the following 2 seasons, one of the top left-handed relief specialists in the game that had a 1.67 E.R.A. in 50 appearances in the previous season, and a very good utility infielder. I don’t see a Cone, Martinez, etc. trade in this record; nothing close in 15+ years.
MJ Recanati wrote:
“Context.” The question was: “What are the 3 best trades this G.M. has made in more than 15 years with the team with the highest payroll in each season throughout that period? And the fact that Justice-for-Day-and-Ledee is offered is itself indicative of that G.M.’s record. Justice was an excellent acquisition. But in 15+ years?
McMillan wrote:
David Wells was traded to Toronto (subsequently to Chicago) before re-signing with the Yankees in 2002. In the three years he was gone, he was worth 8.4 bWAR, logged 562 IP with an ERA+ of 110. In those same three years, Clemens was worth 12.3 bWAR, logged 612 IP with an ERA+ of 119.
So the trade was bad because the Yankees got a better starting pitcher in return?
McMillan wrote:
How is it indicative? The fact that you subjectively exclude trades based on ambiguous criteria doesn’t make the trade any less successful or diminish Cashman’s record.
No sense continuing this conversation. I agree to disagree with you.
Greg H. wrote:
I did not say that the Swisher trade is not “notable.” I have said that there is no record to indicate that he is one of the better G.M.s in baseball, or that he occupies even the second or third tiers. That the Swisher trade (or the Clemens trade) is the best trade this G.M. has made for this organization in 15+ years substantiates that.
MJ Recanati wrote:
I never said the trade was bad. I have said that there is no record to indicate that he is one of the better G.M.s in baseball, or that he occupies even the second or third tiers. That the Swisher trade (or the Clemens trade) is the best trade this G.M. has made for this organization in 15+ years substantiates that.
MJ Recanati wrote:
There’s not much to diminish: Clemens or Swisher in 15+ years? I don’t believe a “Cone-for-Janzen-Jarvis-Gordon-” or “Martinez-Nelson-Mecir-for-Davis-Hitchcock-” caliber trade was subjectively excluded… Not one of the best “Steinbrenner Era” trades was made with Cashman as G.M.
Steve L. 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.
MJ Recanati wrote:
When grasping at straws, it’s best to have as many as you can
@ McMillan:
The only relative standard for a GM is how often the team makes the playoffs. (IMHO). You may view that differently, but that’s my take. By that standard, he’s an above average GM.
Greg H. wrote:
By that “standard,” why is he “‘only’ an above average GM,” and not the best G.M. of all time?
McMillan wrote:
Why the need to bring in bullspit completely irrelevant to the point under discussion, which is: is there any real evidence that Cashman is actively shopping Granderson, as opposed to listening to other teams when they bring up the subject of trading for him?
And again, what, if anything does this have to do with the point I made? Nothing, as far as I can see.
Evan3457 wrote:
This is not an either/or. The trade may have been a mistake long-term. Granderson may well come back and have a better year this year. The two are not mutually exclusive.
McMillan wrote:
It is likely the Clemens deal was a George “gilding the lilly” move. Clemens was a shiny gem, and he was made available by the Jays, and George hadda have it.
McMillan wrote:
Because context must acknowledge that he’s had more resources than any other GM. Other teams with high payrolls have failed to do as well (see the 2012 Red Sox and Phillies, for example), but nobody’s had the consistently extreme payrolls the Yanks have had.
To date, Cashman’s teams make the playoffs nearly every season. The context of that fact is he has had the most money to work with, year after year. To me, that sounds like he’s a “scratch player”, rather than the “36 handicap” you regard him as. Your mileage may vary.
Evan3457 wrote:
And it was the right move to make. Clemens coming off back to back triple crown seasons. And as MJ Recanati wrote:
And Wells was reacquired a couple of seasons later, with both pitching on the same team in 2002-03.
Evan3457 wrote:
Because I don’t understand the point: that there is not “real evidence” that Cashman is “actively shopping” Granderson as opposed to “listening to other teams?” Are we to refer to the Federal Rules of Evidence in this discussion? Is there any reason to believe that the team is not “actively shopping” Granderson?
Evan3457 wrote:
I had originally written the following: “Perhaps if the record were better… the Granderson trade would be of less significance or the “problem, such as it is,” would not exist…” There have been worse trades made than the Granderson trade, but it is yet another one, in retrospect, that should not have been made (and there certainly was not universal approval of the trade Jackson and Kennedy in Dec., 2009 either), and can be described as a “mistake.”
Evan3457 wrote:
I believe it was; yet another mistake by this G.M. Evan3457 wrote:
It is, but Cashman expressed his complete support for the trade at the time the agreement was made, saying his “knees buckled” – if I am not mistaken or referring to a comment Cashman is said to have made at the time he first saw Louise Neathway.
Evan3457 wrote:
I don’t play golf, but “handicap” certainly sounds like an appropriate term in describing Cashman.
Raf wrote:
It might have been the right move to make, but a “right move to make” is not a “great trade.” Cashman has not made a great trade in 15+ years as G.M.
McMillan wrote:
Talk about a moving target. A move can be the right one to make but it isn’t great because it doesn’t involve getting something for nothing. Never mind that trades are judged by both the logic and process involved and by the return.
By both measures, the Wells-for-Clemens trade passes an objective test. The Yankees got a better pitcher who performed better than his predecessor upon arrival.
MJ Recanati wrote:
A move can be the right one to make but not “great” – or any term one might prefer to use, because it does not involve receiving value substantially exceeding such value that was traded or provide for construction of championship teams (e.g. Torres-Spikes-Kenney-Ellis-for-Nettles-Moses, Lyle-for-Carter, Piniella-for-McDaniel, Randolph-Ellis-Brett-for-Medich, Chambliss-Tidrow-Upshaw-for-Peterson-Kline-Beene-Buskey, Figueroa-Rivers-for Bonds, O’Neill-for-Kelly, Martinez-Nelson-Mecir-for-Davis-Hitchcock, Cone-for-Janzen-Jarvis-Gordin, Brosius-for-Rogers, etc.).
Wells-for-Clemens? The team had won 2 of the last 3 World Series and 125 games in 1998. Clemens’ value substantially exceeded Wells and Lloyd, or provided for the construction of the 1999-2001 teams? Clemens went 47-21 in those 3 seasons; Wells went 42-25 in Tor. “[Talent evaluation is not one of my strengths]. I’m an administrator. I’m a good listener. I would not pass myself off as an evaluator of talent.”
@ McMillan:
I wasn’t enthusiastic about the trade at the time it occurred and I’m still not of the opinion that it was unquestionably the right move: “Boomer” was a popular Yankee both inside the clubhouse and throughout the organization and with fans of the team. He appreciated the opportunity to play for the Yankees and to become a part of the history and tradition of the ball club more than most players, and tossed a perfect game with the team in ’98 and had 18 wins for what was one the the franchise’s greatest teams in the same year. And as a left-handed starter he was traded with the left-handed relief specialist opposite Nelson months later almost solely on the bases of numbers and the addition of the name of “Roger Clemens” to the franchise. I would have been fine with the trade not completed, and I think the team probably would have been fine too.
McMillan 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 wrote:
“I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds trades I understand to be great trades within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know one when I see one, and the G.M. involved in this case has not made one in 15+ years.”
McMillan wrote:
There have been quite a few others: Ted Lilly for Jeff Weaver; Weaver for Kevin Brown; Mike Lowell for Ed Yarnell; Jose Contreras for Esteban Loaiza; Nick Johnson, Randy Choate, and Juan Rivera for Javier Vazquez; Gary Sheffield for Humberto Sanchez, Anthony Claggett, and Kevin Whelan; Tyler Clippard for Jonathan Albaladejo, Jesus Montero and Hector Noesi for Michael Pineda and Jose Campos.
Ricketson wrote:
Pineda must improve his change-up and develop into a “#1 starter:” “Michael Pineda better improve the change-up & develop into a #1 starter or [I] will have made a mistake.” Not impossible.
MJ Recanati wrote:
For as long as I’ve been visiting this site, every bad or questionable move Cashman made in his first 5 years as GM was blamed on George. Now, all of a sudden Cashman gets credit for Clemens, Knoblauch and Justice? For Pete’s sake, Cashman became GM in February 1998 and you want to give him credit for the Knoblauch trade?! The deal might have been finalized in Cashman’s first week on the job but the groundwork was clearly laid by Watson. At any rate, you don’t get to have it both ways. If he doesn’t get the blame for his early years, then he doesn’t get the credit either. You’re always all over Steve for “moving the goal posts” yet your take on Cashman is no different.
LMJ229 wrote:
So then why are you giving credit to Watson for laying the groundwork, and not Steinbrenner?
The Knoblauch trade parallels the Clemens and Rodriguez trades in that they were unhappy with their situations and asked (demanded?) to be traded. The Yanks happened to wind up with them.
At least the goalpost moving and revisionist history is consistent; no one ever mentions that Pettitte, Posada, Williams and Rivera were in the system before Watson & Michael showed up. No one mentions Harding Peterson around here. No one ever mentions the Steinbrenner family checkbook being used to sign Wade Boggs, Jimmy Key, David Cone or Kenny Rogers. Or first round draft picks that never panned out, like Brien Taylor, Matt Drews, Tyrell Godwin, & Ryan Bradley. Or that the Yanks were bounced from the first round in 1995 and 1997. Yep, Messrs Watson and Michael did no wrong, they were astute baseball people; never mind the Mulholland, X. Hernandez, D. Weathers trades, etc. Never mind the embarrassment that was the deal with the Brewers; Lloyd with a bum elbow, Listach’s broken foot, Bones’ sucktitude… Yep…
@ MJ Recanati: Really, who the hell is JP Morosi? First to call the Yankees spending (among other, Lupica, et al) as “obscene” (talk about a gross misusage of a word), then cries because they’re not spending enough. That being said, let’s see how many of us are going to enjoy the “building your club “the right way”, via the farm system….
McMillan wrote:
No, sorry, the irrelevant bullspit has nothing to do with the point I was making. It’s gratuitous (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gratuitous; see definition #2) and distracting.
And, no, sorry, when you claim that Cashman is “actively shopping” Granderson, and you’re called on it, it’s up to you to provide evidence (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evidence; see definition #1b) that he is. It’s not up to me to provide evidence proving the negative.
Evan3457 wrote:
The trade may have been a mistake long-term.
I believe it was; yet another mistake by this G.M.
And, as Raf mentioned above, the trade worked. 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.
Not to me so much; but as I say, your mileage may vary.
McMillan 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.
Evan3457 wrote:
Actually, this is not correct; he was ineffective in his one appearance in the 3-game sweep of the Twins in the ALDS in 2009.
But he was extremely effective in the ALCS and World Series.
Raf wrote:
Raf wrote:
That’s true; the relative happiness of the players involved, or their situations, were not factored into the these trades and probably should have been (Nettles-Moses-for-Torres-Spikes-Kenney-Ellis; Lyle-for-Carter; Piniella-for-McDaniel; Randolph-Ellis-Brett-for-Medich; Chambliss-Tidrow-Upshaw-for-Peterson-Kline-Beene-Buskey; Figueroa-Rivers-for Bonds, O’Neill-for-Kelly, Martinez-Nelson-Mecir-for-Davis-Hitchcock, Cone-for-Janzen-Jarvis-Gordin; and Brosius-for-Rogers).
Raf wrote:
Or Sabean. Quinn was N.Y.’s G.M. in 1988-89; Peterson in 1990; Michael in 1991-95; and Watson in 1996-97. Rivera was signed as an amateur free agent in 1990. Pettitte and Posada were both drafted in the 1990 amateur draft and signed by Michael in 1991. As a director of scouting and a vice president of player development, Sabean played an important role in all of these transactions, and the drafting of Jeter. Quinn was responsible for hiring Sabean in S.F. in 1993. Cashman? “[Talent evaluation is not one of my strengths]. I’m an administrator. I’m a good listener. I would not pass myself off as an evaluator of talent.”
Raf wrote
The Steinbrenner family checkbook was used to sign Boggs to a 3-yr. contract at $11 mil., and he went on to be awarded three straight all-star appearances, had four straight .300-plus seasons, and collected two Gold Glove Awards; the checkbook was used to sign Key to a 4-yr. contract at $17 mil. and he went on to post a 48-23 record and 3.68 E.R.A. and a 2-1 record with a 3.52 E.R.A. in the 1996 postseason. 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. And in a second “great” trade, Watson traded the checkbook-signed Rogers for Scott Brosius.
Raf wrote:
Taylor suffered a career-ending shoulder injury in a personal altercation. Should Michael have foreseen this drafted Mike Kelly instead?
Raf wrote:
Incorrect.
Raf wrote:
Correct.
Raf wrote:
Lloyd was such an “embarrassment” that Toronto insisted on his inclusion in Cashman’s “greatest” trade: the one for Clemens.
Evan3457 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.”
Evan3457 wrote:
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:
This is not inconsistent with what was written.
Evan3457 wrote:
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…
McMillan wrote:
A high salaried player on a team going nowhere given up for spare parts? Pick one; Knoblauch, Justice, Abreu…
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
Raf wrote:
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:
Raf wrote:
I believe Cone for “spare parts” is sufficiently close to getting something for nothing so as to constitute a great trade.
Raf wrote:
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?
@ 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.
McMillan wrote:
Hired Gun David Cone?
Those prospects were spare parts;
Marty Janzen: 22 years old in AA
Jason Jarvis: 21 in A-ball
Mike Gordon: 22 in A-ball
Sidebar: Insurance? That explains a lot about Pavano…
McMillan wrote:
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
Raf wrote:
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.
Raf wrote:
Where do you think Jeter might end up next year?
McMillan wrote:
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
A couple more instances where the trading team wanted to cut payroll.
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19951205&slug=2156184
http://articles.nydailynews.com/1995-12-03/sports/17986200_1_yankees-free-agent-market-tino-martinez
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:
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.
Raf wrote:
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:
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:
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.
Raf 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.
LMJ229 wrote:
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.
Raf wrote:
A point that has not been, or can not be, substantiated.
Raf wrote:
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:
Correct.
Raf wrote:
Correct.
Raf wrote:
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:
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:
Some find the “Cashman romances” amusing, both on this site and on the front pages of the New York tabloids.
Raf wrote:
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?
McMillan wrote:
Okey dokey.
Raf 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…”
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
McMillan wrote:
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/a/15744
@ 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.”