You want the Yankees to resign Matsui and Damon then go and sign Cameron as well? On top of that they're keeping Austin Jackson? Why not sign Holliday and Bay while you're at it?
[2] Do you have substance to add, or just sarcasm? Also, I am not sure how Alex feels about schilling for another website, but it seems like poor tact to come here and link to what I guess is your blog without providing any context.
[1] My thoughts exactly. How do I sign up for that?
I'd add Wang to the group of injured upside guys, which indicates my sentimentality toward him. I really think the price of Matsui+Damon+Pettitte+Cameron+arb raises '10 ~= Matsui+Damon+Pettite+Wang+Nady+Molina '09, making the plan a wash. Get it done Cash!
Also, Montero is completely untouchable. The Yanks haven't had a prospect like that since... Jeter?
[4] i'd like cmw back as an injured upside guy who if he contributes it is all gravy too
[1][4] if all 3 of damon, matsui, and cameron are signed (which i don't see happening though) what roles are you seeing happen - and do you envision mekly or gardner are gone through trade?
[5] The biggest drawback to signing old guys, if they have an increased chance of injury. To counter that, you can either target younger players, or make sure you have depth. Basically, I think you have to factor Damon, Matsui and even Cameron missing some time. If you pencil that trio in for 130, 120 and 140 games, respectively, that leaves at least 90 games for Melky. I could also see giving Swisher about 20 games off as well, which now give Melky a very substantial role of over 100 games started along with other games as a late inning defensive replacement.
By adding Cameron to the mix, the Yankees will add a more potent bat against left handed pitching along with good defense and needed depth. It also provides insurance for an injury and allows the Yankees to take preventive steps againt one. Finally, the role left for Melky is substantial enough to determine if he can build upon the progress of 2009.
I don't see the M's signing Jason Bay, it's not really a fit for them, and goes against what they've been doing. At least Figgins made more sense for them.
Yanks have inquired about Mike Cameron enough that I can see them making a run for him to play LF or CF.
[8] Agreed all around. I think the way Cashman has been building the bullpen since he was given full control over the front office is the clearest datapoint we have that he wasn't fully in charge prior to 2006.
FWIW, I think Cash's way is the absolutely superior way. Bruney was plunked off the scrap heap for a small salary, served his use, now he's out for a younger, cheaper, possibly better arm.
[7] I like that idea, as long as everyone involved is on a short-term deal (1 year guaranteed max for Damon and Cameron, 2 for Matsui). Cameron essentially replaces Hinske/Nady, and when needed, you use Swisher at 1B to cover for Tex (with Melky or Cameron playing RF). That's very creative, william!
Then Gardner stays around as the 5th OF/PR (a role he's perfectly suited for), or bring up Kevin Russo/re-sign Hairston or his equivalent for the jack-of-all-positions role. Of course none of us expect the Yanks to have slots for both, and go with an 11-man pitching staff, though wouldn't that be nice . . .
[12] Wicked harsh. Kind of true though. Given Marte's resurgence, it looks like Bruney is the last of the later-middle 2000's cast of revolving annoying relievers to be displaced.
Good thing we still have Mitre though. I think he's about to turn the corner, he was so unlucky down the stretch last year.
The emergence of Robertson and resurgence of Marte during the post season has given Cashman more flexibility with the 2010 bullpen. With Aceves as the long man, the Yankees really only have two slots open. I hope one of them isn't for Joba/Hughes, but either way, I don't think bullpen is a spot where the Yankees need to spend money.
[13] Mitre's option wasn't picked up, but they can still offer him arbitration. I really hope they do not. I prefer Gaudin in the role of veteran who really isn't very good.
I've been banging the "overpay for 1 year each of JD and Mats" for a while now. (To me Pettitte is a no brainer and a lock to return for 1 year). I even would've offered both arbitration to be safe. Worst case: they both accept, get raises, and suck. But at least it only costs money plus a single season. Best case: we get some approximation of last year (i.e. excellence or close to it) and/or multiple draft picks.
It's by far the best way, IMO, to retain flexibility, hold down the outfield fort until AJAx definitively arrives in 2011 (if not later 2010), etc.
I can't figure out a better, cheaper, more flexible way to replace all of JD and Mat's offense. They hit a ton of HRs, got on base, drove in runs, and came through waaaay more than not when it mattered most.
To me this is all a no brainer. But then I'm not the GM.
[11] WRT building a bullpen, Cashman has been doing the same thing he has been doing; free agents (big ticket and scrap heap type players), waiver claims, and trades.
[15] I would be very surprised if the Yanks offered Mitre arbitration. Guys like him are a dime a dozen.
You know, I'm finally around to reading the Angell piece in the New Yorker and goddamn if we didn't have a magical year, and Jesus, how 'bout that postseason? I'm sitting here remembering just how amazing it was, how much drama, how many genuinely great baseball games we saw. It's like it's just starting to sink in how special it all was, now that the adrenaline has long-subsided.
It's making me feel nostalgic and above all, it's really really making me miss baseball.
Wow, this is *amazing!* (from the Angell piece, searching for the guy Cliff Lee reminded him of):
"Then i remembered Hal Newhouser, the Tigers' lefty ace in the nineteen-forties, who ate up batters much in the way that Lee does. Later, I put my question in a phone call to Seymour Siwoff, the dean of the Elias Sports Bureau. 'Hmm,' he said when I mentioned the flying back leg, 'let me think about this for a minute.' There was a pause, and then he said, 'Why do I think it was somebody on the Tigers?'"
I mean my God, that's amazing. Nearly seven deades of baseball ago. I fucking LOVE this game.
During my last semester at St. John's, I did an internship at Elias. Seymour was old back then! (This was 1985). But he did know EVERYTHING about the game. The office was filled with ledger books of old box scores. It was like walking into a time capsule.
I was jogging and for some reason Michael Kay saying "get off the schneid" popped into my head and I thought there are really some things I don't miss about the baseball season.
The Yankees, Diamondbacks and Tigers have discussed a three-way trade that would send Tigers center fielder Curtis Granderson to New York and right-hander Edwin Jackson to Arizona, major-league sources say.
The talks are at an impasse, according to one source. The proposed deal is being pushed by the D-Backs, but was rejected by at least one of the two other teams, the source says.
While trade talks are fluid and the names involved could change, sources say the following scenario is under discussion:
• The Yankees would receive Granderson from the Tigers and one or two prospects from the Diamondbacks.
• The Diamondbacks would get Jackson from the Tigers and right-hander Ian Kennedy from the Yankees.
• The Tigers would get right-hander Max Scherzer from the Diamondbacks, and center fielder Austin Jackson and left-handed relievers Phil Coke and Michael Dunn from the Yankees. -
I don't mind giving up Coke, but I'll be crushed if the Yanks trade Ajax.
[33] The idea of trading for a Rule V pick is very creative, but I wonder if the Yankees really have their eye on someone to whom they are willing to give a 25-man roster spot. If not, perhaps, they are looking to simply block a move by a competitor by selecting a player and then offering him back to his original team before spring training? Because simply removing Bruney from the 40-man and avoiding his arbitration payout is a plus, even a small consideration like that would be a plus.
As for the Granderson deal, I think it make sense provided two things: (1) he is not being brought in to replace Damon; and (2) Jackson could not be used in a Halladay deal without Montero and Hughes (I could live with a Jax and Joba deal).
Regarding #1, Granderson makes sense if the Yankees bring back Damon and Matsui. Then, he could man CF, while Melky vultures about 90-100 games (the same kind of plan I suggested with Cameron as the 4th man). That would give the Yankees a more potent outfield compared to last year as well as a youthful infusion and needed depth.
Regarding #2, I really don’t mind giving up Jackson. He is a good prospect, but far from a great one. In fact, you might say that Jackson’s upside IS Granderson. My only reticence in dealing him would be he might be a central piece in a better deal, but it’s hard to really know that.
[35] It appears that the Yankees will tell the Nats whom to select, and that player will become the one who is later named. Of course, the only draw back is Rule V players retain their status even after being traded, which means the Yankees would have to keep the player on the 25-man or offer him back. If that was to happen, the Yankees would gain $25,000, without having to pay the $50,000, which means the net return for Bruney would be $25,000 in cash.
Here's my off season wish list:
Yankees resign Matsui, Damon and Pettitte to somewhat favorable short-term deals.
Yankees add Mike Cameron and Rich Harden/Ben Sheets.
Mariners sign Jason Bay.
Cardinal re-sign Holliday.
Jays trade Hallday to the NL or the Yankees for anyone not named Joba, Hughes, Montero or Jackson.
You want the Yankees to resign Matsui and Damon then go and sign Cameron as well? On top of that they're keeping Austin Jackson? Why not sign Holliday and Bay while you're at it?
http://www.bronxbaseballdaily.com
[2] Do you have substance to add, or just sarcasm? Also, I am not sure how Alex feels about schilling for another website, but it seems like poor tact to come here and link to what I guess is your blog without providing any context.
[1] My thoughts exactly. How do I sign up for that?
I'd add Wang to the group of injured upside guys, which indicates my sentimentality toward him. I really think the price of Matsui+Damon+Pettitte+Cameron+arb raises '10 ~= Matsui+Damon+Pettite+Wang+Nady+Molina '09, making the plan a wash. Get it done Cash!
Also, Montero is completely untouchable. The Yanks haven't had a prospect like that since... Jeter?
[4] i'd like cmw back as an injured upside guy who if he contributes it is all gravy too
[1] [4] if all 3 of damon, matsui, and cameron are signed (which i don't see happening though) what roles are you seeing happen - and do you envision mekly or gardner are gone through trade?
Chad at LoHud says Joel Sherman says Bruney has been traded to the Nationals. So much for the deal with Atlanta!
And just like that, another 40-man roster spot opens up (I am guessing the player received in return is not yet 40-man eligible).
[4] I'd like to see Wang back too.
[5] The biggest drawback to signing old guys, if they have an increased chance of injury. To counter that, you can either target younger players, or make sure you have depth. Basically, I think you have to factor Damon, Matsui and even Cameron missing some time. If you pencil that trio in for 130, 120 and 140 games, respectively, that leaves at least 90 games for Melky. I could also see giving Swisher about 20 games off as well, which now give Melky a very substantial role of over 100 games started along with other games as a late inning defensive replacement.
By adding Cameron to the mix, the Yankees will add a more potent bat against left handed pitching along with good defense and needed depth. It also provides insurance for an injury and allows the Yankees to take preventive steps againt one. Finally, the role left for Melky is substantial enough to determine if he can build upon the progress of 2009.
[6] Heard that report too...the Bruney to the Braves deal was supposed;y put on hold because Soriano might accept arbitration.
This was probably just clearing up a roster spot and avoiding giving Bruney a raise...if the prospect has any upside, it's gravy.
I don't see the M's signing Jason Bay, it's not really a fit for them, and goes against what they've been doing. At least Figgins made more sense for them.
Yanks have inquired about Mike Cameron enough that I can see them making a run for him to play LF or CF.
Bye bye Bruney?
http://bases.nbcsports.com/2009/12/nationals-not-braves-get-bruney-from-yankees.html.php
[8] Agreed all around. I think the way Cashman has been building the bullpen since he was given full control over the front office is the clearest datapoint we have that he wasn't fully in charge prior to 2006.
FWIW, I think Cash's way is the absolutely superior way. Bruney was plunked off the scrap heap for a small salary, served his use, now he's out for a younger, cheaper, possibly better arm.
[7] I like that idea, as long as everyone involved is on a short-term deal (1 year guaranteed max for Damon and Cameron, 2 for Matsui). Cameron essentially replaces Hinske/Nady, and when needed, you use Swisher at 1B to cover for Tex (with Melky or Cameron playing RF). That's very creative, william!
Then Gardner stays around as the 5th OF/PR (a role he's perfectly suited for), or bring up Kevin Russo/re-sign Hairston or his equivalent for the jack-of-all-positions role. Of course none of us expect the Yanks to have slots for both, and go with an 11-man pitching staff, though wouldn't that be nice . . .
NO MORE BRUNEY
The off season is a success.
[12] Wicked harsh. Kind of true though. Given Marte's resurgence, it looks like Bruney is the last of the later-middle 2000's cast of revolving annoying relievers to be displaced.
Good thing we still have Mitre though. I think he's about to turn the corner, he was so unlucky down the stretch last year.
The emergence of Robertson and resurgence of Marte during the post season has given Cashman more flexibility with the 2010 bullpen. With Aceves as the long man, the Yankees really only have two slots open. I hope one of them isn't for Joba/Hughes, but either way, I don't think bullpen is a spot where the Yankees need to spend money.
[13] Mitre's option wasn't picked up, but they can still offer him arbitration. I really hope they do not. I prefer Gaudin in the role of veteran who really isn't very good.
[15] well gaudin is much luckier than mitre :}
i do think this means melancon needs to prove somewhat useful this year
I've been banging the "overpay for 1 year each of JD and Mats" for a while now. (To me Pettitte is a no brainer and a lock to return for 1 year). I even would've offered both arbitration to be safe. Worst case: they both accept, get raises, and suck. But at least it only costs money plus a single season. Best case: we get some approximation of last year (i.e. excellence or close to it) and/or multiple draft picks.
It's by far the best way, IMO, to retain flexibility, hold down the outfield fort until AJAx definitively arrives in 2011 (if not later 2010), etc.
I can't figure out a better, cheaper, more flexible way to replace all of JD and Mat's offense. They hit a ton of HRs, got on base, drove in runs, and came through waaaay more than not when it mattered most.
To me this is all a no brainer. But then I'm not the GM.
[11] WRT building a bullpen, Cashman has been doing the same thing he has been doing; free agents (big ticket and scrap heap type players), waiver claims, and trades.
[15] I would be very surprised if the Yanks offered Mitre arbitration. Guys like him are a dime a dozen.
Ya that Mitre comment was a joke.
You know, I'm finally around to reading the Angell piece in the New Yorker and goddamn if we didn't have a magical year, and Jesus, how 'bout that postseason? I'm sitting here remembering just how amazing it was, how much drama, how many genuinely great baseball games we saw. It's like it's just starting to sink in how special it all was, now that the adrenaline has long-subsided.
It's making me feel nostalgic and above all, it's really really making me miss baseball.
[19] I believe any comment around here that includes Mitre in it should automatically be considered sarcasm... >;)
[21] et al.
Man, you guys are harsh, piling on a guy as unlucky as Mitre. Cut him some slack---he was just a fifth starter after all.
[22] See? It works!
Wow, this is *amazing!* (from the Angell piece, searching for the guy Cliff Lee reminded him of):
"Then i remembered Hal Newhouser, the Tigers' lefty ace in the nineteen-forties, who ate up batters much in the way that Lee does. Later, I put my question in a phone call to Seymour Siwoff, the dean of the Elias Sports Bureau. 'Hmm,' he said when I mentioned the flying back leg, 'let me think about this for a minute.' There was a pause, and then he said, 'Why do I think it was somebody on the Tigers?'"
I mean my God, that's amazing. Nearly seven deades of baseball ago. I fucking LOVE this game.
[24]
During my last semester at St. John's, I did an internship at Elias. Seymour was old back then! (This was 1985). But he did know EVERYTHING about the game. The office was filled with ledger books of old box scores. It was like walking into a time capsule.
Late-breaking news .... Jack Curry is taking a buyout and leaving the NY Times.
[26] If I were to take a buyout, I'd be sure to leave a Wall Street Journal. Seems more appropriate, all things considered...
[25] Wow, Diane, what an amazing experience that must have been. That just sounds like a dream.
I was jogging and for some reason Michael Kay saying "get off the schneid" popped into my head and I thought there are really some things I don't miss about the baseball season.
[4] OPS-wise, Montero (so far) is well better then Jeter. Actually, better then Mattingly too. And Munson. And Murcer. Best bat since Mantle????
[29] Ha hah ah ah ah ha ha ha ah ha ah ha ha hh a!!!!
Hear, hear.
Oh, God, totally. I don't know why, but man, it creeps me out when he says that.
What are you going to do with Kay?
[29]
As long as you didn't hear "fisted into left"in your head
Mark Feinsand says Bruney was traded for the Nats' Rule 5 draft pick.
Sounds like the Yanks have their eye on someone. And it means trading Bruney doesn't really open up a roster spot.
And Rosenthal has this tidbit:
I don't mind giving up Coke, but I'll be crushed if the Yanks trade Ajax.
[20], [24] Finally picked up a copy yesterday. For any others looking to make a late acquisition: there were still a handful of copies to be had here:
http://www.yelp.com/biz/casa-magazines-new-york
Mark Feinsand says Bruney was traded for the Nats’ Rule 5 draft pick.
Does that mean that the Yankees now own the Nationals' right to draft a Rule 5 player? That could actually be useful.
Remember the Marlins in 1999. Well, we can always dream, right?
[33] The idea of trading for a Rule V pick is very creative, but I wonder if the Yankees really have their eye on someone to whom they are willing to give a 25-man roster spot. If not, perhaps, they are looking to simply block a move by a competitor by selecting a player and then offering him back to his original team before spring training? Because simply removing Bruney from the 40-man and avoiding his arbitration payout is a plus, even a small consideration like that would be a plus.
As for the Granderson deal, I think it make sense provided two things: (1) he is not being brought in to replace Damon; and (2) Jackson could not be used in a Halladay deal without Montero and Hughes (I could live with a Jax and Joba deal).
Regarding #1, Granderson makes sense if the Yankees bring back Damon and Matsui. Then, he could man CF, while Melky vultures about 90-100 games (the same kind of plan I suggested with Cameron as the 4th man). That would give the Yankees a more potent outfield compared to last year as well as a youthful infusion and needed depth.
Regarding #2, I really don’t mind giving up Jackson. He is a good prospect, but far from a great one. In fact, you might say that Jackson’s upside IS Granderson. My only reticence in dealing him would be he might be a central piece in a better deal, but it’s hard to really know that.
[35] It appears that the Yankees will tell the Nats whom to select, and that player will become the one who is later named. Of course, the only draw back is Rule V players retain their status even after being traded, which means the Yankees would have to keep the player on the 25-man or offer him back. If that was to happen, the Yankees would gain $25,000, without having to pay the $50,000, which means the net return for Bruney would be $25,000 in cash.