For Yanks Diminished Opportunities Will Mean Diminished Returns
Because of the big market revenue sharing teams can keep their homegrown stars for second contracts. So the Yanks aren't getting as many shots at 27 or 28 year olds as they use. Of course, one of the Yanks' old advantages is they never had to see Bernie, Jeter, Mo or Po in other uniforms. Now they're seeing Cano and DRob in them because they weren't smart enough to lock them up sooner. So that's a big problem on the MLB level, they just can't wait for players to becom FA's like they did when they passed on a Santana trade and waited for CC. Okay so their opportunities to hire top notch 27 year olds is gone - and that's a problem
Further, the new IFA rules are a problem. 2014 started out great in IFA when the Yanks grabbed Tanaka, then when after an historically great batch of July 2 kids. Still a great plan. But, with two year of heavy sanctions and a possible International Draft on the way -- the Yanks left powder dry by now signing Moncada, mainly, but also by passing on Yoan Lopez. They literally may never get a shot at teenage players of the Yoan level again - unless they pick first which is probably closer to happening than they can admit to themselves.
Unfortunately, the Yankee solution for missing out on kids and age 27 has been trading their draft picks to sign over 30 MLB FA's. You can see how this not only makes them an older team, with a bunch of contracts that are already bad or could go bad at any given moment -- but it blocks the way of younger players who might actually make it through the system and give them 6 years of salary relief.
So, by trading draft picks for old players, and by turning down one Cuban after another, and by leaving powder dry during their 2014 IFA attack, the Yanks have screwed themselves unless they get almost singularly lucky over the next few drafts. I believe they have the Scouts to do just that -- but can the Yanks resist their propensity to trade those picks for 30 and over FA's?
They are really in a bit of a crisis and there ways out have been exhausted by passing on every life saver they've been offered.
Again, they really have to work the next few drafts and find more hits, like Severino was, in the cheap end of IFA if they want to avoid a protracted period of futility like the one that followed `65 or started in `82. This could get ugly. And there could be little kids starting to follow th team in the next few years who will have a hard time believing they used to be GREAT.
posted by Kalel9 @ 10:47 PM
26 Comments:
As much as I don't want to root for the team to fail, it's almost a given the team would be better off totally collapsing than it would simply treading the waters of mediocrity.
Cashman has told us his plan since he traded Montero: pitching holds the keys to the kingdom, and worse, he has sold Hal on it, and that probably wasn't that hard to do because:
1) A not insignificant number of people believe that, although it's not true at all in the regular season, and more importantly, balance wins;
2) It's cheaper and easier than building a dominant offense especially at a time when offense is at a premium;
3) It can be done, in part, by overloading the bullpen, and that's what we are seeing, with Cashman citing the Royals as his model (although he was doing the same thing before they were).
Obviously, this strategy carries risks:
1) Pitchers are extremely fragile, especially under 26, and this cold reality has punched them in face repeatedly;
2) It distorts the perceived (as opposed to the actual) value of defense, which is in reality highly dependent on pitching, and we have seen this in their offseason "choices" of Headley, Didi, and Drew, as well as them loving having two CF without power.
a) Pitch framing is a related issue and that was in part why they loved Chris "No Hit" Stewart;
3) Bad, if not putrid, offenses imposes more high leverage innings on starters, in particular, and we may have seen the damage done to Tanaka as Girardi often left him in despite the US MLB transition he had to surmount.
Bronx Bombers???? Heh.
Good post Lawyer. Not to say pitching and defense don't have value, but sacrificing offense to gain it is an exercise in folly. That and overpaying for journeymen to fill out the 25-man are my two biggest gripes with Cashman.
From Heyman's article:
While bidding for Moncada was spirited -- with the Yankees and Padres said to be within shouting distance of Boston’s $31.5 million bid, and even the small-market Brewers involved -- one executive questioned whether that kind of money should be invested elsewhere.
"You can get a pretty good major-league starter for 60 to 70 million dollars,” that executive pointed out. (Ervin Santana got $55 million, and James Shields $75 million).
-------
Gee, I wonder which exec said that.
And notice that exec said "starter," and Heyman's mentioning of two pitchers implies he meant "starting pitcher."
Keys to the kingdom and whatnot.
If Boras was representing Moncada, we wouldn't be reading that tripe from Heyman.
Do mediots file anonymous executives in the same file as anonymous scouts?
You can get a pretty good, aging player as they enter their decline years for that kind of money, but it is not very often that you can get a potential star in his ascendent years for that money.
And when you have been development-challenged as the Yankees have been under Cashman's entire tenure, the necessity of exploiting that type of opportunity is beyond compelling.
I don't doubt that Cashman wanted Moncada, but did he sell Hal on it as hard as he sold him Tex in 2009?
There is no way of knowing.
Thanks Mike, btw.
Pitching was a key component of the "Dynasty" era Yankees, but there are two important differences today. First, pitchers were cheap then and they aren't now, so the fact that the team went through pitchers until they burned out didn't hurt. Second was that Yankee Stadium was a pitcher's park back then: 400 to right center and 440 to left center meant that if you had a good fastball people didn't get around on you to hit homers down the line too often. About the only type of pitcher who didn't do well then was a rh control pitcher. To this they added defense up the middle, especially in cf. They had a few superstars, true, but also some useful part timers and always a few lh hitters who could turn a mistake into a 3-run hr down the rf line. Today, by contrast, the cost of burning through Raschi, Reynolds, Grim, Turley, Sturdivant, Kucks, Terry, Bouton, and Larsen, leaving aside all the ones who didn't make it, would be prohibitive, and on top of that they've turned Yankee Stadium into a launching pad, so many pitchers wouldn't want to touch them with a ten foot pole today.
Well, let's just hope that one or two of last summer's IFAs outdoes Moncada.
Phil Hughes already named opening day starter. OUCH!
Cashman didn't sell Hal on Tex.
Tex was a move made by ownership, just like Soriano was.
I wish Hughes luck, he's a flyball pitcher that fits Target Field, not Yankee Stadium. It was clear he had renewed confidence in attacking hitters last year, indicated directly by his career low bb%.
I'm probably one of the biggest Hughes fans out there. I bought a #34 authentic in 2008, which has since turned into the following players over the past few years:
Damaso Marte!
AJ Burnett
Derek Lowe :(
Vidal Nuno
Brian McCann
At least I have Doc Goodens autograph on it.
That's just not true.
Cashman said at the time that he sold Hal on overspending for the 2009 season because they had money coming off the books after the 2009 season and the next year's free agent class wasn't as strong.
Admit it. You're in love with him. NTTAWWT
And you're wrong about Hughes. He had much better stats on the road than at home, so it wasn't park effects:
Road: 263 .280 .366 .646
Home: .273 .288 .412 .700
11 HR at Home
5 HR on the Road
Sometime after the meeting — Cashman was not sure when — the Yankees made a six- or seven-year offer for $20 million per season that Boras did not accept. The Yankees pulled the offer, and Cashman was unable to convince his boss, Hal Steinbrenner, that Teixeira was worth a longer contract than C. C. Sabathia, who signed for seven years and $161 million.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/07/sports/baseball/07yankees.html?pagewanted=print
Well for 1, I'm 100% confident in how Tex was signed and the entire negotiation process that occurred.
We made our best offer and were rebuffed. It wasn't until a week or 2 later that word got to Hal that he was on the verge of signing with the Sox that we swooped in last minute with a monster 8 year deal. So, as I said, Cashman did not "sell" ownership on Tex. Keep reading what the tabloids tell you.
As for your argument regarding Hughes, my point was his whole pitching style changed, due to his ballpark. This is reflective in how he ATTACKED hitters, which contributes to his overall stats for 2014, not just his home/away splits.
The biggest indicator of his new approach is in his pitch selection:
2013: Fastball% 61.5
2014: Fastball% 64.7
The increase in fastball usage has a direct correlation to his BB%.
2013: BB% 6.5
2014: BB% 1.9
If you ever pitched before, which I doubt, you would understand the role your ballpark plays when it comes to pitch selection and your conviction in that pitch choice.
I'm just going to stop because you're a lawyer and all you care for is arguing for no reason, so this is a waste of my time.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Also, great read by RAB on Moncada. Pretty much sums up everything we've already discussed but in a more concise way.
http://riveraveblues.com/2015/02/thoughts-yankees-lose-yoan-moncada-114858/
You said it was a Hal signing. It wasn't.
Which you doubt?
You know shit about me.
So tell me what I am having for dinner.
Hughes was just a "Fat Toad" that could not perform in NY and Yankee Stadium.
NY is not for everyone.
It was a Hal signing. And I can easily deduce you've never pitched / played / coached or even were employed at any professional or collegiate level based on a multitude of different factors.
The only thing I know your eating is crow because I love how you can tell me for a fact that it wasn't a Hal signing based on your newspaper sources, when in reality, I was present for the entire process in the baseball ops department. If you knew anything about ME, you would know I do not personally like Cashman at all, yet I know better then to point fingers at people when I don't know any facts.
Billy,
Interesting about Teix. If there's one albatross contract I can't blame the Yankees for having, it's him. No way could I have anticipated he'd go on such steep decline after just one year with the team. A lot of it has to do with the shifts in the league, IMO, and his stubborn refusal to adjust to them. I've said this before, but if there's one thing I credit McCann for, it's that he's at least open to changing his approach somewhat.
I'm going to preface this by saying I don't think for a second Hal Steinbrenner isn't the reason the Yankees didn't land Moncada. But if it's true that others "weren't high on him," or whatever, then they'd A.) Better be right or B.) Better be held accountable if he turns into a star for the Sox.
Anon,
I'd like to think we're above calling former players "Fat Toads" on this blog, but I'll defer to Phil as far as community standards go.
No one could have predicted Teix's almost instant decline after season 1. A players prime is typically age 27-33, so we already knew the back-end of the deal would be for his declining years, however, no one would have thought it would be year 2.
As you point out Mike, I agree a lot of the regression can be attributed to the shift. His BABIP dropped from career .310 to mid 200's after 2009, which is why his overall avg has gone down so much.
The variable we can't quantify is the impact the injuries have had on his overall ability and ultimately what led him to become so pull conscious?
My theory (and I have no quantifiable evidence to back this up, so take it with a grain of salt) is that he Yankee Stadium'd his swing. Since he's predominantly going to bat left-handed, it makes sense that he'd want to try to shoot for that short porch in right.
Here's another good article from Fangraphs on the Yankees missing out on Moncada:
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/yoan-moncada-and-the-yankees-odd-spending-habits/
"The Yankees decided the free agent model of the last decade was not working and great savings could be had by avoiding free agents, until they had one sub-90 win season. They decided a great advantage could be had by outspending rivals on international free agents and accumulating a ton of talent, until a player they wanted cost $13 million too much. The Yankees have incredible resources, and for the most part they are using them, but how and when they choose to spend causes befuddlement. Yoan Moncada may not be worth $63 million, but for a team that seems focused on getting younger and building up through the farm again, this seems like an odd place to start worrying about overspending."
That pretty much sums it up. It's not that they're cheap, it's that there's no rhyme or reason to any of it. There's no adherence to an overall plan.
Billy Boy
You have no clue. You live in a fact-free world in which reality is whatever you choose to believe it is, kind of like real Billy Martin.
Eating crow? Because I choose to believe Cashman's own words that are reflected in the NYT article I quoted.
Have another drink.
Both FG and RAB hit the nail on the head. It's like Hal makes decisions to spend on amateurs solely depending on which side of the bed he wakes up on.
I really wish a reporter would ask him why they didn't think spending on Moncada was more risky then investing in a 31 year old vet.
I also would love to see him pressed on the subject of getting below 189. Signing a player like Moncada follows that strategy, but yet they don't do that
Post a Comment
<< Home