Comments on: Success, Success, Success: Does it Matter?

By: RIYank

RIYank — Thu, 28 Jun 2012 21:28:37 +0000

I guess I don’t get it. The price to the Yankees is apt to be higher when the Yankees are over the proverbial barrel.
I’m still not quite sure whether you are denying this.

This particular post has now disappeared off the sidebar list, so it’s unlikely I’ll check it again — but you didn’t irk me, Jon, don’t worry! (I’m pretty hard to irk. I’m almost inirkable.)

By: Jon DeRosa

Jon DeRosa — Thu, 28 Jun 2012 19:50:01 +0000

[37] Just now revisiting your last comment, it seems like I irked you in 36 and I missed it the first time. Sorry if so, I’m just rushing around, not being antagonistic

By: Jon DeRosa

Jon DeRosa — Thu, 28 Jun 2012 18:54:36 +0000

[37] I just mean that the price of elite starting pitching does not flucuate with the health of the Yankee rotation. The price of elite starting pitching ebbs and flows with the number of elite starting pitchers available and the number of teams looking to acquire them. (and the quality of the pitcher is a variable and the contract status and the quality of the team he plays for etc…)

So if now’s not a good time to buy, when is? And assuming you can identify the right time, is the benefit of waiting for that time worth fielding an inferior team in 2012?

By: RIYank

RIYank — Thu, 28 Jun 2012 18:22:41 +0000

[36] Not sure what you mean — it sounds sarcastic, but if so I’m missing your point.

I assume you aren’t implying that the price of elite starting pitchers is always the same. That’s absurd. So I wonder what you do mean…

By: Jon DeRosa

Jon DeRosa — Thu, 28 Jun 2012 15:41:38 +0000

[34] OK, sounds good. You’ll let us know when the price comes down on elite starting pitchers?

By: Alex Belth

Alex Belth — Thu, 28 Jun 2012 15:37:46 +0000

http://bit.ly/Qs796k

By: RIYank

RIYank — Thu, 28 Jun 2012 15:25:20 +0000

Jon, why not always trade whatever it takes for whatever really good pitchers are on offer?

Because under certain circumstances the price is likely to be much higher, and it makes more sense to wait and strike when the price falls. A team that’s well-managed will be in a position to take this sound long-term approach.

By: Jon DeRosa

Jon DeRosa — Thu, 28 Jun 2012 13:34:03 +0000

Again, this is because they have to address the rotation this winter anyway. Why not do it now and put a choke hold on the 2012 world series?

By: Jon DeRosa

Jon DeRosa — Thu, 28 Jun 2012 13:32:12 +0000

[31] It’s not the ideal negotiating situation for Cashman, but that’s why he should be giving off all indication that he’s not that interested in making a deal.

But if the scenario plays out as you describe, and the Yanks are close to acquiring one of the top pitchers in the game in a deal he finds acceptable, giving them a clear leg up on the 2012 world series and multiple titles after that, then whatever incremental premium cash has to pay due to his relatively poor negotiating position is meaningless to me.

By: RIYank

RIYank — Thu, 28 Jun 2012 13:24:18 +0000

They won’t prefer to accept a lesser deal from the Angels, but on the other hand they’ll consider it worth some risk to tell Cashman he has to pay more. Cashman doesn’t know exactly what the Angels are offering, after all. (So I admit, the airfare analogy is of limited use.) They risk the Yankees walking away from the table, but a good GM will do that.
Think about how we landed Teixeira — because Teix had the balls, he got the Yankees to put up more money than it would have taken to sign him.

By: Jon DeRosa

Jon DeRosa — Thu, 28 Jun 2012 13:10:43 +0000

[28] Think about what you (and Cashman?) are suggesting here – that the Brewers (so as not to offend 26) would accept a lesser deal from, say, the Angels because they have a good rotation than they would from the Yankees because they have holes. In the same marketplace.

That only makes sense if the Yanks are the only bidder. They won’t be.

By: Jon DeRosa

Jon DeRosa — Thu, 28 Jun 2012 12:52:36 +0000

[28] No, I don’t think that is true at all. The Yankees are not the only team after these pitchers, the price is the best deal the seller can extract from the market. The airlines don’t change the ticket price to Paris based on if I really need to go there or not.

By: RIYank

RIYank — Thu, 28 Jun 2012 11:17:15 +0000

Jon, I don’t see how you have addressed the point. It’s irrelevant that top pitchers are always expensive. Flights to Paris are also expensive, but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try to find the cheaper time of year to go.
Do you agree that making a trade when the league thinks you have to is going to cost you a lot more? I think that’s certainly true. Did you mean to disagree?

So that’s a good reason not to try to trade for a star pitcher now.

By: Jon DeRosa

Jon DeRosa — Thu, 28 Jun 2012 04:18:41 +0000

[26] sorry if our discussion of cole hamels perturbs you mr. Phanatic, but can you check with your colleague Bernie to see if it is also ridiculous for us to consider Greinke?

And when you visit Milwaukee does he let you use the slide?

By: flycaster

flycaster — Thu, 28 Jun 2012 03:54:10 +0000

The Yankees don’t have anyone the Phillies would take for Hamels. So stop. Just stop.

By: Jon DeRosa

Jon DeRosa — Thu, 28 Jun 2012 02:09:44 +0000

[24] I didn’t hear/read any of Cashman’s comments, so I don’t know his point. But it’s never cheap to acquire superstar pitching. They had to trade Jesus friggin Montero to get a promising arm in the winter.

Bargains come on players who are severely underperforming or from teams crippled by a contract. The Hamels and Greinkes cost a fortune no matter the season and no matter the perception of the buyer’s need.

So I really don’t care what it cost in terms of these prospects. None of them are anywhere near as good as Montero was, I’m not going to sweat trading them for a short & long term answer.

Of course Cashman should be saying he’ll gladly stay with what he’s got, but he shouldn’t actually stay with what he’s got.

By: RIYank

RIYank — Thu, 28 Jun 2012 00:22:10 +0000

Jon, yes, the best way to win in the playoffs is to be good at everything. I mean, obviously! The best way to win in the regular season is to be good at everything, too. Or better yet, to be great at everything.
But Cashman has a point: if you decide you need to trade when everybody thinks you need to trade, you get fleeced. The upgrade might not be worth it.

I still like the idea of trading for Hamels, myself. I like it because we know the reason Philadelphia is looking to deal him, and it’s not a reason that the Yanks should avoid him. I think Hamels is probably more valuable to the Yankees than to the Phils, which means it should be possible to make a trade without selling the… farm.

By: Mr OK Jazz Tokyo

Mr OK Jazz Tokyo — Thu, 28 Jun 2012 00:06:38 +0000

[16][17] I like the name Asdrubal. It sounds nice in Spanish.

By: Jon DeRosa

Jon DeRosa — Thu, 28 Jun 2012 00:06:29 +0000

[21] Sure they could. But then what happens if either Andy or even CC doesn’t come back 100% by the playoffs? You are going into the postseason with a bad rotation – again. The best way to win in the postseason is to be good at everything so that if one of your pistons isn’t firing, you’re not out of it.

CC, Pettitte, Kuroda, & Nova is fine by me. Eliminate either CC or Andy, bump Hughes up and that’s a playoff loser.

By: Bruce Markusen

Bruce Markusen — Wed, 27 Jun 2012 23:10:53 +0000

Short term, the Yankees have enough pitching to get through it: Kuroda, Nova, Hughes, Garcia, and either Warren or Phelps.

I wouldn’t expect a trade from Cashman. Historically, he doesn’t like to make trades in response to injuries.