In 2008, Cash was willing to rely on a rotation composed of three kids: Joba, Hughes, Kennedy. In part, that reliance was a consequence of his decision not to pursue Santana, because at least according to media reports, he would have had to surrender both Hughes and Kennedy in any prospective trade (unless Wang was included instead). Consequently, even though 2008 proved yet again that the development of pitching prospects isn’t necessarily linear, I think it’s reasonable to believe that a commitment to a youth movement in the rotation requires that a GM adheres to that plan irrespective of those bumps in the road. Cash (or his bosses) has apparently chosen not to do that, which I think can be fairly viewed as a change in philosophy.

That you are unable to see that indicates that the lack of rationality and intellectual clarity belongs to you

Not too long ago, Cash publicly stated that the reason that he was developing kids is that he didn’t want to go into the FA market to acquire veteran starters given the concomitant costs and risks.

It should be noted that with CC as part of the rotation, a commitment to youth would be easier to endure..

As for Cameron, take a look at his 2007/2008 splits:

v. L:

2007: .294/.404/.510
2008: .282/.397/.555

v. R:

2007: .222/.316/.413
2008: .231/.309/.452

Given that the majority of starters are RH, those splits demonstrate that for most of Cameron’s ABs, he will have a very tough time getting on base.

You are viewing Melky’s stats in a very skewed way, but I guess when one intends to reach a conclusion and then find a rationale for it, strange things happen.

Granted, Melky’s 2008 OPS+ was 68, but his 2007 OPS+ was 89 and his 2006 OPS+ was 95. For a large portion of 2007, his OPS was around .800.

Let’s also keep in mind that Melky is 24 and has a chance to get better. Cameron will be 36 in January and will quite possibly get worse.

I am floored by how myopic your analysis is, and iit doesn’t even contemplate that Gardner may be able to make a positive contribution, or that another CFer could be acquired who earns far less than the $10 million that Cameron will make in 2009, which underscores the main point: $10 million could be better spent.

Instead you focused solely on Melky, perhaps because you are only able to rebut straw man arguments.

Your point about Cashman changing course is also off. In 2008, Cashman was willing to go with a rotation with a 39-year old Moose, 36-year old Andy and two kids. In 2009, he has a 28-year old CC, a 32-year old AJ and Joba (with Hughes waiting in the wings as an injury replacement and ready to step in in 2010). How exactly is that a change in philosophy? The only odd man out is IPK, and I happen to think he deserved his demotion.

Finally, adding an above average defensive CF’er (according to UZR) who had a 110 OPS+ does not make the offense works. Because he is replacing Melky’s 68 OPS+, he actually makes it much better.

I am floored by the lack of rationality being used to analyze this deal.

That said, I think this offseason demonstrates that Cashman no longer has decision making authority. IMO, he gives the Steinbrenners his best advice, but they are calling the shots. The reason I believe this is that I just don’t think that Cashman has done a complete 180 on roster construction philosophy from last few years to this one.

That said, he has entered into this situation with his eyes wide open, so these moves, for better or worse, are imputed to him.

Meanwhile, the offense sucks and trading for Cameron will only making it worse.

Anyway, here is my take:

While many analysts that I respect (like Goldman and Cliff) have lined up to point out the injury history of Burnett, I fall more in the camp of Keith Law, who has focused more on Burnett’s overwhelming talent. Guys with a high 90s fastball and a killer curve don’t go on trees. If the Yankees could ever harness Burnett, they would have a dominant force.
Now, I am not going to be naive and suggest that Burnett will all of sudden be a picture of perfect health. Having said that, I think Cliff, et al. are exaggerating his injury history. This is not a Carl Pavano case. Over the past 4 years, Burnett has started 32, 21, 25 and 34 games. Quite frankly, I would sign up for that now. Because the Yankees now have starting rotation depth, they can easily survive Burnett missing 25 starts over the next four season. Besides, the Yankees are not simply building a contender, but a potential World Champion, and guys like Burnett make big impacts in October. It’s worth noting that while with the Jays, Burnett’s ERA in September was 2.92 with 130 Ks in 123 IP. How nice would it be to have Burnett carrying that performance into the playoffs?
Another point of contention I have with Cliff’s analysis is his assertion that Burnett is excess because the Yankees have so much pitching depth. While I am very high on Chamberlain and Hughes, I also realize that they have severe innings limits and can really only be viewed as one starter. That leaves an open slot and I simply do not think IPK or Aceves is the answer. What’s more, the likes of McAllister, Bleich, Betances and Heredia are several years away (and certainly can not be projected to be effective major league starters just yet). To suggest that the Yankees don’t need another effective starter because someone from this crop might eventually emerge seems a little naive to me. And, even if this really is such a great crop of pitchers, why can’t one or two be packaged for a good offensive player?
Another argument that I think is fallacious is the one that suggests the Yankees are abandoning youth and bucking the trend of relying on players in their prime, as was advanced by Verducci. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. If the Yankees allow Chamberlain and Hughes to get their innings this season, they both will have slots in the 2010 rotation when Pettitte presumably retires. How many other players would have three under-30 home grown starters in their rotation?
While the Yankees lack of younger position players is a concern, you don’t solve that problem by neglecting the pitching staff. In fact, bolstering your pitching staff (especially with arms that rely less on your aging defense) helps take pressure off the offense. While I agree Tex seems to fit like a glove, I think Matt Holliday would be even better. I firmly believe that the Yankees are looking at Tex as an alternative to Holliday and may prefer the latter, especially as the Yankees will have no outfielders under contract in 2010.
One final note…everyone’s darling, the Rays, won the AL pennant with an OPS+ of 99 and an ERA+ of 116. Last year, the Yankees had an OPS+ of 101 and ERA+ of 104. If the Yankees can move their ERA+ closer to 110 and get the OPS+ back up to 105, why can’t be a winning combination. Personally, I think the Yankee offense, as constituted, can perform at the level, so maybe adding another bat is not the necessity some think (and more like adding AJ Burnett to the staff)?

2006: 135.7 IP, 3.98 ERA, 1.30 WHIP, 7.83 K/9, 2.59 BB/9– 115 ERA+
2007: 165.2 IP, 3.75 ERA, 1.19 WHIP, 9.56 K/9, 3.58 BB/9– 119 ERA+
2008: 221.3 IP, 4.07 ERA, 1.34 WHIP, 9.40 K/9, 3.50 BB/9– 107 ERA+

Add to that the worst line drive rate of Burnett’s career in 2008. And now he’s 32 years old. The dude is rarely ever ready to pitch a full season, his stats are on the decline, and we just signed him to a five(!!!) year contract. Wonderful.

Also, next years’ offense is going to score like 750 runs. Signing every pitcher on the planet is not going to help with that.

Now they need to get Texeira.

Hey Cliff, come in off the ledge will ya? BTW, a true fan sticks with his team through good times and bad. I’m just guessing, but I take it this is a bad time for you? Heh.

I was kind of hoping for Tex and a couple of cheaper pitching options, but it is what it is. And I can remember A.J. mowing down the Red Sox and Yanks last year with lights out stuff ( 5-0 with a 2.56 ERA against the Sox in 8 career starts). Toronto wanted badly to keep him, and they ought to know, and the Braves wanted him to top their rotation. I’m well aware of his injury history, but I’m hoping for the best.

Call me crazy, but a rotation of C.C., a hopefully over his foot problem Wang, a Burnett like he pitched last year, a healthy Joba, and Andy/Hughes, whoever, has got me excited. These signings should help fill out those seats and boxes in the New Yankee Stadium also. Yeah, that offense is a ? to some extent, but there are teams that have won with a lot less, and the potential is there if things go well.

Meanwhile, we still have the young pitching, which has to be a plus considering what Santana or Peavy would have cost in prospects. This now gives the youngsters time to develop, instead of being rushed like Phil and Kennedy were last year.

Anyway, I’ll probably get hammered for my take on this, but I’m being positive at this point in time.

Fenway P: 22.2 IP; 0.40 ERA
Tropicana: 54.2 IP; 2.30 ERA
Sky Dome: 262.1 IP; 3.77 ERA
Yankee St: 25 IP; 2.88 ERA
Camden Y: 25.1IP; 3.91 ERA

Keith Law: Not even close. Pavano in the NL in his only two healthy years, right before signing with the Yanks: 423 IP, 272 K’s, 35 HR allowed. That’s in a big ballpark, facing opposing pitchers to boost his K total. Burnett, in the AL East, in a slight hitters’ park, last two years: 387 IP, 407 Ks, 42 HR. You can’t make a performance argument that he’s like Pavano. You can’t make a health argument that he’s like Pavano (who was hurt in some part of every year until his sixth season). You definitely can’t make a stuff argument that he’s like Pavano. That’s a completely unfair tag to place on Burnett.

First of all the result of the Pavano deal was anomalous: He is one of the most infamous signings in recent years in the MLB. Plus his attitude was called into question which made it that much more irritating.

Secondly, conventional wisdom at the time was that Pavano was a pretty safe bet and a solid signing. Etc etc.

Again, I’m not saying I agree with this deal, particularly having dude hang around for five years, but it seems to me some people are really overreacting. He may end up being a disaster, but a Pavano-sized disaster is pretty rare. Oh and as for Wright, I don’t know of anyone who thought that was a good idea.

I think ultimately though, the difference with Burnett for me is at his best, he is frigging awesome. Neither of those two yahoos had that going for them. I think the Yanks are kind of wishing upon a star, but whatever. You know, after three years when Sabathia’s gone, we may all end up being glad they got Burnett, if he somehow lives up to this contract.

I call BS right there. They have four clear weakness going into next year:

1. Catcher
2. Shortstop
3. Centerfield
4. Bullpen

The only moves they’ll make is getting some crappy, cheap bullpen help while they sit on three more youngsters (Ellsbury, Lowrie, Kottaras). Then they’ll play the “We’re not the Yankees” card if another team outbids them for Teixeira (who they don’t really need) and for why they don’t try to re-sign Varitek (who they don’t really want). And their fans won’t see they’re still paying the highest ticket prices but the team failed to spend at all.

As for the rest, I think you are overreacting. Burnett has good stuff, really good stuff. And when he is healthy, he’s a good pitcher. The key is staying healthy, which everyone knows is the problem. But Farnsworth? come on, not a good comp.

5 years is too many years, but the Yankees have shown that they are willing to add on extra money and an extra year to get who they want. The 5th year is really not going to make a difference.

Either you are against Burnett period, no matter the years, or you’re not, I think. He’s either going to be hurt a lot and not live up to his contract, or he’ll be hurt less and provide pretty good #s for the Yanks.

But Burnett is not going to prevent Phil Hughes from pitching for the Yankees. He may prevent Aceves/IPK, but I’m not sold on either of them. He may prevent McAllister from reaching the majors as soon as he is ready, but he might not.

The whole point of Sheets is that you plug him for 1 or 2 years. If he gets hurt, than Hughes/Aceves/IPK are still around to back him up. AJ on the other hand is going to be hurt for part or all of FIVE years, and he’s really not that good to begin with. Its going to be like watching Kyle Farnsworth as a starter. Great stuff, too bad he walks the park and gets hit around. Maybe he’s got a good uppercut though.

I consider this to be the Yankees betting that AJ will be an ace. They’ve largely ignored offensive needs to spend a ton on a pitcher. If he fails, like he always does, we’re in big trouble.

But Ben Sheets is even more of a walking gurney than Burnett.And trading away young pitching doesn’t have to be a bad thing, if done right. And Cashman has definitely shown to be a pretty good trading GM.

I think Burnett for 5 years sucks. But its not catastrophic, and could be a good thing. As I said above, I think relying on Sheets and Hughes etc is not the best thing.

I think betting the season on AJ Burnett could prevent a world championship. Does that count?