The Village Voice totally sucks without you, Emma. That's good for us, though... >;)

There seems to be some mandate set in the stone heads of certain people that we must win now at all costs, but honestly, this team has gotten most of their lifts when youth is served. Most other teams allow their young players to thrive or fail because they have no alternatives. Here, we only tell ourselves we have none, then try to fill our needs with castoffs in mid-season and hope they stick around next season...

I was going somewhere with that, but I don't think anyone cares, so I'll just say eight runs gooood, no runs baaaaad... >;)

[1] All the more reason to make a change at the top instead of in the roster?

In any event, the win was great and, like all victories, should be enjoyed. Having said that, as Kenny Singleton pointed out last night, the game felt more like a Braves loss than a Yankees win. Also, I would further point out that since the 9-game streak, the Yankees have won 3 consecutive games only 1 time. In other words, just like before the streak, much of the schedule has been win one, lose one, win two, lose two. There was a lot of optimism after the crisp win on Friday, but look what followed after that.

So, with that dose of reality splashed across everyone's fun, we now return to your regularly scheduled post-win optimism, even if it is tinged with quite a bit of sarcasm.

Emma, I'm so glad you included the Cervelli line from his Kim Jones interview. Poetry.

Also, all Banterers should check out thelarmis' post-game post mortem.

[3] Thanks, RI. When I turned on the game and saw the Yanks go from down 1-0 to up 4-1, my first thought was, "thealarmis has got to be so psyched right now." That was an awesome recap.

[0] Emma, thanks for reminding me there's one thing that's cool about interleague play - Mo vs. NL hitters who have never seen him before. I still think they ought to scrap it, though.

For quite a while, this has been a 2nd half team... especially consideing their financial resources, and the ability to 'add on' late in the season. Again, if you look at individual stats, the team looks very healthy.

To me, the only real issue is RISP in tied/losing games. We will always have a lot of LOB as we have a high team OBP. But I'll bet we have a low percent of getting runs home.. compared to men on base.

Last year, the Yankees made a truly horrible trade by burning one of their few position prospects at AA or higher for the underwhelming duo of Nady and Marte. Neither played particularly well for the Yankees. I no longer trust Cashman to make the right moves to improve this organization, despite having a ridiculous payroll advantage. I cannot be optimistic about this team as long as the current decision makers are in charge. It's gong to take a lot more than one win to make me change my mind.

[3] "Frankie brains"--I love that!

that was a great recap from thelarmis.
i hope he does break out the strawberry glove and snags a foul ball!

and yeah mo just completely fooling nl hitters is quite a sight.
at first when he got to the plate i hoped he would just stand there, but if mo had gotten a hit that would have been one of my favorite plays of the year to-date.

Absolutely loved watching the Braves' faces hitting against Mo. I was most amused. It was even more fun as watching Mo get razzed by his teammates as he prepared to hit. Boy, I'm happy he's a Yankee.

It's not that the situation is dire. I know, as fans, the recent losses (which could have been wins), get into our psyche. But, selfishness aside, I think these losses are symptomatic of something I can't put my finger on. How does the team get to the root cause? The talent is there.

Of course, they doe this against under .500 NL teams almost every year. They step down to the plate.

".... Nady and Marte. Neither played particularly well for the Yankees. I no longer trust Cashman to make the right moves to improve this organization".

Again, at the time, it seemed like a very good deal, although in hindsite, I guess it will depend on how salvageable Tabata tuns out to be. But again (and I will get repetative on this), the WE GOTTA WIN NOW mantra this team suffers from was at the root of this deal. The Yanks were looking to miss the PS last year. An ordinary fate for most teams. But not us. Cashman was expected to do something. Cashman ALWAYS has to do something for THIS year.

It is very hard for a GM when you have an old team that has to WIN NOW and also has to get YOUNGER AND MORE FLEXIBLE. It's hard to get young when to use salary dumps in an attempt to win now, liberally use the FA market, and always get the bottom of the barrel picks in the draft.

Could you imagine a Yankees team that has to WIN NOW letting a Pedro go? Or a Damon (who was still very effective at the time). A Nomar? Can you imagine Cashman giving the 'excuse' that it's better for the team in the long run?

And on that trade, like so many pitchers we get, Marte has not lived up to his baseball card. Hard to blame Cashman for that. Our OF (Gardner, Melky, Matsui) was in shambles.

Only time will tell who 'won' on that trade.
But the impetus for that trade was 100% based on
WE GOTTA WIN NOW!

[7] IIRC, Cervelli in Italian is "brains". I forget who first pointed that out. So "Frankie Brains" is a translation of sorts of Cervelli's name into English.

[10] I disagree. In any transaction, the idea is to sell high and buy low. When that trade was made, Nady was in the midst of an out of context half season, while Tabata's value was at an all-time low. Additionally, the Yankees' pen was pitching effectively, and they didn't really need Marte.

Yet Cashman ignored that market economy proviso and made the trade anyway. Unsurprisingly, Nady reverted to his prior league average level of production, and Marte was experienced elbow problems and was ineffective.

Making the trade more ill-conceived, Nady has never had a high ISO D, and Cashman has said he wanted the team to return to being grinders.

I don't understand why the "WIN NOW" meme has ever gained any currency or legitimacy. Sports history demonstrates that attempting to win now almost always means never winning. That's why the Knicks and Rangers are almost always mediocre at best.

Cashman has worked in the Yankees' FO since he graduated college. He has seen first hand that the only time this organization was in a position to win championships over a sustained period of time was when Stick and Co built a homegrown core and showed them the necessary patience to succeed.

If Cashman and the Steinbrenners haven't learned from that glaring example of success, then they aren't very bright, and they deserve our condemnation rather than our rationalizations for their failures.

If Boston's business model of letting Pedro and Damon go hasn't taught the Yankees the right way to be successful, they should close up shopt.

One more time; WINNING NOW MEANS NEVER WINNING!!!

Stop falling for it.

[6] [10] If Nady didn't get hurt, I am not sure how one could call it a bad deal. I think you are also being a little generous with Tabata. At one time he was considered a top prospect, but his stock had dropped significantly, partly because of performance and partly because of concerns over his "attitude".

Tabata did have a late season revival after the trade, but in 103 ABs in AA, he is back to an OPS of .645.

Last year, the Yankees made a truly horrible trade by burning one of their few position prospects at AA or higher for the underwhelming duo of Nady and Marte.

Given Tabata's on/off field problems, I'm not surprised he was traded. He needed a change of scenery.

Additionally, the Yankees’ pen was pitching effectively, and they didn’t really need Marte.

Doesn't mean that they can't try to improve.

The problem w/ the Pirates trade wasn't Tabata. It was not getting Bay, who was obviously available for a prospect package.

I doubt the Yanks would have made the playoffs anyway, but it would have really hamstrung the Red Sox.

[12] Selling high and buying low sounds nice, and is definitely an ideal philosophy, but in the real world, it doesn't always work that way, especially in a market as small as MLB. Brian Cashman has 29 trading partners, so insisting on a buy low/sell high approach often means not making a deal. At the time of the trade, Nady and Marte were two commodities that the Yankees needed.

I am not sure what history book you are reading, but "attempting to win now" very often leads to winning. If you think the Rangers and Knicks have been actually been "trying" to win, I can see why you might be confused. I am sorry, but there is no basis for your recommendation.

[16] LaRoche was the key to getting Bay and the Yankees did not have a comparable position player prospect.

Cashman was a little snakebit last season. The players he acquired seemed like great reinforcements, and they just didn't work out as advertised, most notably Pudge.

[18] The Yankees could have matched the LaRoche led package, but it would have hurt a lot more than the Nady Marte package.

[20] With whom do you think they could have subbed for LaRoche?

First of all, the Yanks weren't competing w/ LaRoche since that deal wasn't on the table yet. So the Yanks don't need an exact match for LaRoche.

While it would have been costly, I have no doubt that the Pirates evaluation of what Bay was worth, given what they accepted from the Dodgers and Sox, was matchable by a number of combinations of Yankee prospects.

[19] Pudge was an improvement over Molina

[17] Selling high and buying low sounds nice, and is definitely an ideal philosophy, but in the real world, it doesn’t always work that way...

It's not enough that it sounds nice. For smart organizations it's a first principle. If it isn't satisfied then there is no reason to make a trade.

Nady's value will likely never be higher than it was at the time the trade was made; Tabata's value will likely never be lower. With as much as they had invested in Tabata, and with their dearth of position prospects, if there wasn't a good deal to be made, then the prudent course is to hold on to him until his value recovers. Even if that doesn't happen, the opportunity costs of moving him prematurely warrants waiting to see if his value recovers.

Regarding Nady's value, as I said above. when you are building a team around plate discipline and good defense, he is a terrible fit because he brings neither to the table.

In sum, it was a poorly thought out trade on every level.

With as much as they had invested in Tabata, and with their dearth of position prospects, if there wasn’t a good deal to be made, then the prudent course is to hold on to him until his value recovers.

At the time the trade was made, scouts had already questioned his character/makeup, he had came to camp overweight, he had injury problems, and he was suspended twice.

The organization probably thought he was more trouble than he was worth and let him go.

Sometimes an organization will deal a player just to get rid of him. The Cardinals trading Keith Hernandez was a perfect example of this.

[22] Again, what prospects do you think would have matched LaRoche? We can at least assume the Pirates were looking for someone like LaRoche, so I think it's a fair question. You keep implying the Yankees could have matched the package, so I figured you had someone in mind?

[24] That doesn't make any sense. Scores of good trades have been made without adhering to that philosophy. Basically, you are suggesting that the only good trade is one in which you rip off your counterparty. Maybe you can get away with that in a voluminous market, but that isn't going to work in one as small as MLB.

You are also quite wrong that Tabata’s trade value would never be lower. In fact, based on pre-season ranking between 2008 and 2009, Tabata’s stock has continued to fall. If he keeps putting up an OPS of .635 in AA, he might not have enough value to net a Nady/Marte package. If we go with your assumption that Tabata definitely will improve and Nady was definitely going to decline, then you might have a point. Of course, before the injury, there was a good chance you’d be wrong on both counts.

[27] List ten...

It makes perfect sense in any transaction in any field. Why would any reasonably prudent GM with any intelligence trade assets when they are at their low point in value? It's a terrible business practice.

If a trade that is made under those circumstances does work out, ipso facto it is for the wrong reasons, or it is merely the result of serendipity.

Tabata had a stellar ST. If he had been traded at that point, he would already have been worth more than he was when the Yankees traded him. What he is worth a few months later really isn't dispositive of anything.

Nady's value has declined since the trade, as has Marte's, since both have sustained serious injuries. Additionally, Nady is a FA at the end of the season, so any team that traded for him at this point would value him as an injured rental player.

Marte had an elbow injury at the end of last season, and yet the Yankees still signed him to a three year deal in a market that was impacted by a rapidly declining economy, and despite the fact that he was 34, an age at which many relievers decline. So he too has been devalued.

Brosius for Rogers quickly comes to mind.

[25] Tabata was 20 years old at the time fo the trade; Hernandez was 30.

That 10 year age difference confers a great deal of plasticity on anyone's ability (short of being a murderer or a rapist) to turn their life around.

Consequently, the analogy is inapt.

But even if he was "more trouble than he was worth," it's dumb to trade him for a player like Nady whose value was at an all-time high, and whose skillset didn't fit the Yankees' plan.

[29] Brosius for Rogers quickly comes to mind.

1997
Brosisus OPS+ 53
Rogers ERA+ 79

No, that was a trade made when both players' value was at an all-time low. So if you want to argue that the exception to the don't trade low rule is that that if you trade a player low, make sure that the player you trade him for is also at a low point in value, I would agree.

[30]

Hernandez was also one of the better players in the league at the time the trade was made.

If a player, like Tabata, has shown himself to be a disciplinary problem, then it should come as no surprise that an organization will part ways with a player. So far, with Tabata not showing much of anything in AA, as well as the kidnapping incident he was associated with, it appears the Yanks may have made the right decision. He may turn things around, or he may wash out. It's too early to tell.

[32] I agree. I think drug use is a victimless crime and that the Cards were stupid to trade him given what they got back when his value was at an all-time low.

My point was that if one is in doubt about the possibility for redemption, then they should at least take age into account when considering those doubts.

It may be no surprise because the Yankees make a lot of bad decisions, but it was still a dumb trade. If they felt they had to trade him, then as in the Brosius/ Rogers example, trade him for another asset that is undervalued.

[26] I'm sure with your vast knowledge of the Yankee universe, you can assemble a package of prospects which the Pirates would have accepted for Jason Bay instead of Nady and Marte.

There is no reason to focus on LaRoche, as if the Pirates were saying "who do have that is comprable to LaRoche?" The Pirates need starters and relievers as well as position players, as evidenced by the considerable role that Karstens and Ohlendorf have played for them. The Yankees have many better pitching prospects than those guys.

And considering the timeline, if the Yanks targeted Bay instead of Nady, the Pirates need for a position player close to MLB ready would not have been so great since they would have been retaining Nady for the time being. Plus LaRoche had been famously bad for LA in his debut, making his future incredibly risky.

There's no need to get specific, but among the 8 or 9 better pitching prospects the Yankees had over McCutheon, Karstens and Rasner, and the 2 or 3 better position prospects that Yanks had over Tabata, I see no reason why they couldn't have gotten Bay.

[28] Maybe Cashman thought Tabata's value would sink lower? Isn't that a possibility, if not a liklihood. I know lots of investors who adhere to the buy low and sell high strategy...of course, the only problem is they don't know how to identify the high and low points. Sometimes, selling low allows you to cut your losses when the alternative might be to sell even lower (or take a total loss).

There are many legitimate reasons for selling low (you think the asset will decline further) and buying high (you think the asset is fairly valued and likely to sustain its worth), as well as selling high (you want to take profits) and buying low (you think the asset is undervalued or poised for a rebound).

Your simple buy low/sell high just isn't practical or sensible in the real world.

Specifically on the trade, you can't point to Tabata's ST and Nady's and Marte's injuries because they all happened after the deal. You have to go with the facts as they were known at the time. Besides, even if you want to use hindsight, you can't ignore Tabata's current struggles.

[34] You're the one insisting they could have put together the package, not me. I figured you had someone in mind before making the claim. It's one thing to say they could have gotten Bay, and another to actually name the price. In other words, yes, there is every much a need to get specific if you want to seriously analyze the situation. So, while a package of Hughes and Montero or Jackson probably would have gotten the deal done, I don't think that would have been a very wise move to say the least.

[36] nice choices. the pirates would have jumped at that.

all the yankees had to do was to meet the pirates asking price for bay in early July. we have no idea what that might have been, but considering what they accepted for nady and marte and what they evenutally accepted for bay, we can make educated guesses. why so intent on throwing 3 or 4 hypothetical names out there? how will that serve to make this conjecture into serious analysis?

all we know is bay was to be had and the yankees had room to improve their offer. that's enough for me, sorry if that's not enough for you.

[37] I didn't realize you were throwing out a trade proposal in talk show fashion and had no interest in actually exploring the suggestion further.

[38] somewhere between "joba, hughes, jackson and montero " and "ohlendorf, karstens, mcutcheon, and tabata" exists a trade that would have landed jason bay.

i think it's pointless to throw a bunch of names out there onto the scale and then guess when the pirates would say, ok, that's a go.
from the following pool of 9 guys, i believe the pirates could have easily found enough for bay:

jackson, melancon, robertson, coke, kennedy, aceves, mcallister, kontos, & nova.

some of those guys were better prospects 12 months ago, some of them are better now, but considering the pirates settled on laroche and his .166 batting average over 252 at bats in his age 24 season as the key to the deal, i'd say that they were pretty open to suggestion.

william, as you may or may not now, your posting is insulting, passive aggressive, arrogant and sanctimonious. you are one of the main reasons not to participate on this message board.

but even still, i'll share my own experience since i think we have some things in common. i learned in 2004 that you don't get any points for being right or being the first one to identify that game is going to be lost or that the playoffs are not going to be achieved. not only that, it doesn't make the pain of losing any easier. take a look back at all the times you've quit on the team, and then they've had a great comeback, sucked you back in, only to be crushed again when they can't complete the job. it's not easing the pain any for you.

of course the pessimist is going to always look for the first way out to hide from the negative result, but that's clearly not working for you. i too am a pessimist, but since 2004 i'm trying to change. i refused to get optimistic even up 3-0, told anyone who would listen that they were going to lose as soon as mo blew game 4, and then they lost. and in addition to the pain of losing, i got to wallow in the fact that i had quit on my team for no good reason other than that i was a coward.

you have a long record here of expressing your opinion. look it over. is that the type of fan you want to be? if it is, good luck with it, just please don't address me anymore as i am sick of your insults.

[35] Lets assume for the sake of argument that you are right. Isn't the better course to trade him for a similarly devalued asset, as I proposed above, rather than an overvalued one?

That's why I don't think there is a reasonable basis to conclude that "you think the asset is fairly valued and likely to sustain its worth" in Nady's case because his OPS+ for the first half of 2008 (144) was so out of context with his 108 career OPS+ (his highest prior OPS+ was 107), and he was already 29 years old.

So even if you exclude his subsequent injuries from the analysis, the case for making the trade is extremely weak.

I remain convinced that buying high and selling low is the surest way to avoid making bad trades.

We'll see if/when Tabata gets his head on straight.