Ugh!
So, reports are coming in from all over that the Yanks are not in on Chapman. I'm hoping this is an elaborate ruse, otherwise I'm getting concerned about our organizational will going forward. The Yanks radically altered their IFA plan as soon as Chapman defected. Not only that, but since then, they have traded off a nice chunk of talent, including one very high upside arm from their farm. Chapman represents a great opportunity for a team that never picks hight to add a top talent to their farm and future. Passing just doesn't make any sense, unless he did something to really turn them off. They have to replace the lost talent and they should be starting with this kid. Go Yanks.
posted by Kalel9 @ 3:58 PM
26 Comments:
If they aren't interested, I wish Newman wouldn't have made the comments he did to Jennings.
Yeah, it're really weird. There may be a disconnect between NY and the farm again.
I thought Cash's ascension ended that.
I thought so, too. But I don't like that we cut our draft budget this passed year, and then passed on some good IFA talent cause we were supposedly going after Chapman. Now we're finding out we haven't.
On the other hand, I have heard that we had some more IFA's lined up that we'd be signing last month and this, so let's see what, if anything, has happened there.
Supposedly, the Marlins are out.
I suppose no one really knows what's going on right now.
It's easy for me to say because it's not my money, but I don't think Chapman should make his decision based on a few million. How he will be developed should be at least as important, because if he gets the right instruction, a few million could end up being tip money to him in a few years.
I am very concerned about the organizational direction going forward.
It is obvious to me that Hal and co. have taken an "it's the MLB roster or the farm system, but not both" route. In other words, the higher the payroll for the big league team, the less money will be spent on singing amateur talent.
Not signing Chapman, after supposedly altering their plan so much, is nonsensical. It reeks of not having any set plan, but just making decisions on a whim. If you're going to alter your plans for this guy, but not go all out, that's poor management.
This assumes, of course, that he and his agents aren't absolutely demanding a major league (taxable) deal.
And to make matters worse, you have this "bench player for LF" garbage. The offense is now weaker than it was last year, unless Nick Johnson has a power surge.
I know Rich is high on Gardner, but I don't personally see him as anything more than a good bench player. I think he has too many holes in his swing that would be exploited heavily if he were to see regular playing time.
All in all, I'm quite wary of what the organization is trying to do.
I think we need to see that over a larger period of time to reach a definitive conclusion, Mike, but the irony is that the less you spend on farm system, the more you are likely to have to spend on the ML roster.
It's not that I'm high on Gardner, but I think he has shown enough in small samples to have a chance to be a useful player, but as a CF, not a LF.
I don't think it's any coincidence that our drafts have been noticeably weaker since Hal and co. started budgeting for Cashman ('08 and '09) than before ('06 and '07).
But Rich, didn't he accumulate those stats as a part-timer during those months?
I thought people like the '09 draft? The '08 draft stunk, but that had a lot to do with Cole's flip flop and Bittle's shoulder. Maybe they didn't do their due diligence. I don't know.
I liked the bang in the `09 draft, but we should have signed a few more picks.
The `08 draft got screwed up by Cole not signing.
The '09 draft in terms of budget constraints, not talent taken. The belief that it was good, but with more money in the pool, it could've been great.
Gardner?
He had almost as many AB in May and June when his OPS was > .900 as he did in April.
He does need to stop upper cutting.
If they can sign a player that is a bona fide upgrade, great, but I'm not sure what Reed Johnson does.
If the Yankees thought he was an everyday starter, he should have started every day. Barring another move for a legitimate bat at that position, this is poor planning.
Sometimes development isn't always linear, and he wasn't the same player after he got hurt.
Their lack depth is a consequence of having such a top heavy payroll and a farm system that isn't producing enough position players yet.
They also had to think that Hughes and Joba would be established starters by now. Trading for Vazquez (although justifiable under the circumstances) burned prospects and payroll space.
All that aside, I have thought that signing Chapman was a no brainer for them.
Ken_Rosenthal
#Source: Angels "trying like crazy" to sign Chapman.
Tim Brown hears from an Angel source they're not that deep in it.
The Yankees are better this year than they were last year offensively.
I think you're probably right. Now we just need them to stay healthy.
Edes reports that the RS are still in it.
We must still be, too.
Yanks would have signed him by now if they really wanted him.
Move on from him and get a RH bat for the bench and call it an offseason.
Post a Comment
<< Home