Comments on: Look Ma, I’m Gabbin’

By: The Hawk

The Hawk — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 21:58:45 +0000

[75] LOL, now wait a second – now you’re telling me that no one said Mitre or Gaudin would be acceptable??? I just told you that! This is getting strange.

By: Raf

Raf — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 21:54:56 +0000

[74] No one said “Mitre or Gaudin would be acceptable.” What was said was “Hughes and Joba in the rotation would be any more risky than trolling the depths and starting Chad Gaudin and Sergio Mitre instead. I’d rather take my chances with highly rated prospects/young pitchers with good stuff, than the “less risky” (i.e., know crappy pitchers) that they will end up with every five days.”

By: The Hawk

The Hawk — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 18:05:40 +0000

[73] I’m talking about in this thread, not from the organization. When I said I would feel uneasy about Chamberlain and Hughes in the rotation at the same time, I didn’t say “but Mitre or Gaudin would be acceptable” … And again, if the Yankees are willing to take some risks and semi-rebuild, at least in the rotation, then Hughes and Chamberlain are fine choices.

By: Raf

Raf — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 17:54:59 +0000

It isn’t so much that they were presented as better choices, it’s that they were options, and pitchers of those types (ilk?) have found their way on Yankee pitching staffs. Not to say that they won’t in the future, every year has featured some sort of retread, which predates Watson, Michael and Cashman.

By: The Hawk

The Hawk — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 17:43:12 +0000

[71] From Merriam-Webster: a weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted

Again since no-one offered up Mitre and Gaudin as better choices than Hughes or Chamberlain, I’m certain it is not a misapplication of the term.

By: monkeypants

monkeypants — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 15:51:08 +0000

[70] Well, you may call the argument a straw man if you wish (I am pretty certain that is a misapplication of the term), but it seems to me very likely that a Gaudin-quality pitcher will be in the rotation next year, because that is the sort of pitcher that has tended to end up in the rotation the last couple of years. I think that it a reasonable prediction on my part.

Meanwhile, last season the Yankees had plenty of options not to use the likes of Rasner/Gaudin/Mitre/Ponson, but chose to consign at least two of those options to the BP. I thought it was a bad move then, and I still think it was a bad move. To avoid this situation next year, Hughes and Joba must be groomed as starters. Otherwise they will end up back in the pen, where the same arguments will be used to keep them there, and by mid season we have Unlucky™ pitching in the rotation again.

Most importantly, I really don’t see how using two highly rated prospects in the #4 and #5 spot in the rotation is such a gamble, which you seem to think that it is. Joba’s ERA as a starter is about 4.20; Hughes’ ERA as a starter is about 5.20. Assuming no improvement from either of them, those are #4 and #5 numbers right there. I see positively no reason to go out looking to sign FA’s (most likely at an inflated price) when the solutions are in house, cost controlled, and could yield an even greater payoff down the road. Finally, given the likelihood that the FA(s) they sign will be no more “solid”, I don’t see how having both in the rotation next year will hurt their championship chances measurably.

By: The Hawk

The Hawk — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 06:40:07 +0000

[69] A straw man because no suggested they are a better choice, nor would anyone, I don’t think. If you’re arguing against an easy (in this case realllly easy) target that no-one else brought up,that’s a straw man.

If the Yankees want to put Hughes and Chamberlain in the rotation that’s fine but I don’t think it’s in the best interest of winning a championship in 2010. If they’re willing to make that considerable gamble, more power to them. If not, they better get a solid #4 and figure something out between those two young men.

By: monkeypants

monkeypants — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 03:33:55 +0000

[66] Why a straw man? They did pitch this year for the Yankees, a significant number of starts. Maybe this year was unusual? Ok, what about last year? Sidney Ponson (15 starts) and Darrell Rasner (24 stars). I’m not at all confident that by mid season, after inevitable injuries, we won’t see similar crappy starters in the rotation, so I would rather have the highly rated prospects groomed and given every opportunity first, rather than stick them in the BP and hasten the road to Sidney Ponson.

[68] I wonder what the chances are of Chamberlain or Hughes becoming a very good starter.

I don’t know the odds. Probably pretty low, which is just another way of saying jow very valuable starting pitching is. Hence, it is in the interests of the team to give both every opportunity to succeed as starters.

By: The Hawk

The Hawk — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 03:24:09 +0000

[59] I wonder what the chances are of Chamberlain or Hughes becoming a very good starter. I guess we need to establish some examples of very good starters. I figure not an ace, but a number two, or number three?

Anyway why don’t you give some examples otherwise I’ll start guessing.

By: NYYfan22

NYYfan22 — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 03:19:47 +0000

[65] haha alright alright alright. I almost spit my spaghetti all over the computer monitor. hehe

2m… if only is agent accidentially left off a zero. haha

By: The Hawk

The Hawk — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 03:17:55 +0000

[55] Gaudin and Mitre are the epitome of straw men in this case. Child please!

By: ms october

ms october — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 03:10:36 +0000

[64] left off the 0 – should be $20m

By: ms october

ms october — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 03:09:50 +0000

well we can cross manny off any fa list (he exercised his $2m option with the dodgers)

By: 51cq24

51cq24 — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 03:02:06 +0000

[62] i don’t think it’s fair to include vazquez there. we should never have traded him.

By: OldYanksFan

OldYanksFan — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 03:00:30 +0000

[56] Phil and Joa have the potentail to be better then very good. And comparing a SP to Mo is unfair. Mo is Godlike and one of a kind. Would you rather have a very good SP or Lidge? Or Papsmear? If Phil and/or Joba can’t make it as a SP, then they will be moved to the BP. But they should be given every opportunity, and the support they need to succeed. As MP said, do you want to play the RJ, Vasquez, Pavano, Wright merry-go-round some more?

By: 51cq24

51cq24 — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 02:59:41 +0000

regardless of which is more valuable, it seems to me we still have closer covered for at least a couple years. joba and hughes should both start. and if they can’t do it, relieving is a fallback.

By: monkeypants

monkeypants — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 02:57:14 +0000

[58] Uh-oh, is it that time of the year when we start agreeing???

By: monkeypants

monkeypants — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 02:55:20 +0000

[57] I’ll take a very good starter over a great closer any day. Now, your comparison to Mo is a bit unfair. Even if we accept that his few innings are worth *that* much (and he gets extra credit for the post season), he is only, like, the BEST OF ALL TIME at his position.

So maybe…maybe…I would THE GREATEST CLOSER OF ALL TIME over a very good starter. But otherwise, I would just about always take a very a good starter. Moreover, since the odds are highly against Hughes or Joba equaling the GREATEST CLOSER OF ALL TIME, I’d rather give them every chance to make it as starters.

Has anyone ever seen a WARP-like valuation of relievers that takes into account the leverage of the innings they pitch

Good question…that I do not know.

By: OldYanksFan

OldYanksFan — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 02:52:12 +0000

[55] Absolutely. Starting pitching is too valuable to waste, and it’s time to stop fucking around with these two, and give them the best environment possible to succeed. A successful Hughes and Joba is very important to this team. And is IPK is the mix sometime in 2010?

By: RIYank

RIYank — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 02:42:29 +0000

[55] [56] I have to admit that I am right now having a very hard time believing that a very good starter is more valuable than a great reliever. I’m sure I don’t have to explain why. We know who the most valuable post-season player in the past fifteen years is, right? Maybe the most valuable post-season player of all time.

Has anyone ever seen a WARP-like valuation of relievers that takes into account the leverage of the innings they pitch?