dude the multiple quotes are still beyond me so bare with me.....Ill speak to one point in this post......so now the three kids as we'll refer to them so we dont have to name each individually anymore, are going to only give us the 150 or 160 inings but theyre gonna be split up all over the place...so Hughes will give us 8 but then disappear for a while? and "some other" kids will pick up starts and fill in...and then the moose will be dusted off once in a while for spot starts? that is a sure recipe for disaster my foriend. please name me one tem that has ever gone into a season with such a plan and been successful.....and lemme recap again just to be sure....what youre proposing is hughes will give us 150 innings...but instead of 30 starts at 5 innings per- he'll give us 20 starts @ 7.5 per......and so will kennedy and so will joba.......so that leaves about 35 starts, which is more than 20% of the season mind you, for the other kids...and moose? karstens etc...igawa maybe? that my friend is a complete clusterfuck of a rotation...especially considering boston, detroit, cleveland, seattle, anaheim ill be rolling out a formidable staff on a regular normal every 5 day basis. p.s you wanna flip a coin 30 times in hopes of one heads? so we have to parade 30 asshats through the pen til we find a gem?
Verducci didn't even put the bolded part in his article until he was flooded with e-mails telling him how wrong he was. So in reality, Kennedy shouldn't even be on this list.
Of course you have to bank on the emergence of a few kids and a few unknowns. Firstly, because it DOES happen every single year. Also, it's the only way a successful bullpen is built. On average, there's less than one reliever per team who is very good year in and year out. It's next to impossible to find them, and when you do, they go somewhere else to be a closer. Or in Joba's case, you'd rather he be in the rotation. I'm glad you brought up the bullpen the Yankees had during their dynasty. Stanton: 1997 - 2.57 1998 - 5.47 1999 - 4.33 2000 - 4.10 2001 - 2.58 2002 - 3.00 Nelson: 1997 - 2.86 1998 - 3.79 1999 - 4.15 2000 - 2.45 The two best years of the dynasty, our "top" middle relievers had a combined ERA of about 4.60 and 4.25. Even Stanton and Nelson in the dynasty, who Yankees fans look back to with such great memories, were a crapshoot. Not counting closers, in 1996 Rivera was our best reliever. In 1997 we had our best bullpen ever with Nelson, Stanton, Lloyd, Boeringher all pitching very well... and that was the one year we didn't win a championship. In 1998, Lloyd, Holmes, and Mendoza were our best relievers. In 1999, it was Grimsley and Watson. In 2000, it was Nelson and (at times) Gooden. Every year a bullpen changes. You have to bank on unknowns and young guys to contribute, or else you overpay for consistent mediocrity (Farnsworth).
The Cano contract is official, btw. http://www.yankees.com Awesome contract. We save money in arbitration, and if he's the player we expect him to be, we get him at a near bargain for the last two years. If not, a small $2M buyout.
Not sure if there are any draft fans here, but this is a good article about the Yankees and the 2008 Draft. http://riveraveblues.com/2008/01/25/2008-early-draft-preview-the-top-talents-1980/ If Cole drops to the Yankees at either 28 or 43 (maybe a little later than 43 pending FA signings), I'll be doing cartwheels. Hosmer's a guy I like, and thought it would be unlikely he'd fall to the Yankees, but with Boras, and a rumored "ego", he seems to be falling a lot.
Jeez man, you follow players at that low a level too? I don't even know much about the minors except what hear here and once in a while I catch something out on the net. I love baseball, but you are dedicated bro!
We were not outspending the competition by more that 2-1 in the 80s either. There has been a reason the Yankees have been so good for the last 12 years and that hasn't changed now. So, it is perfectly reasonable to expect them to be competitive every year as long as the money keeps flowing. Now that could change next year when 85 million comes off the payroll. If they don't spend that on replacement players then I will agree with you that we may need to take a step back but not until that happens.
It's really not that hard. Not that this is an all-important debate or anything, but putting the effort into figuring out such a simple thing as multiple quotes might reflect better on the apparent amount of effort put into organizing your argument. First of all, #5 starters don't make 30 starts. They make around 25-27, because of off-days and skips in the rotation. The schedule takes care of that with no need to "replace" those starts on the part of the Yankees. And it's not going to be piecemeal like that. Look at it this way: Hughes can be used as a #5 starter. If Hughes gives you an average of six innings, that's 25 starts. Kennedy is more or less set to throw a full season. It's Chamberlain whose starts are going to be a little iffy. BUT... in order to limit his innings, they're going to be using him in the pen. Which should - if you're being honest here, as opposed to just stubbornly pessimistic - alleviate your concern about how craptastic the bullpen is. So someone needs to fill in for Chamberlain while he's in the pen, and possibly a few starts for Hughes. That's a meaningless request, because (to the best of my knowledge) there's no basis for comparison. I could just as easily say, "Please name me one team that has ever gone into a season with such a plan and had it fail." That does nothing to prove my point, any more than that statement supports yours. Dude, your numbers are absolutely wonko. The best pitching staff in the majors doesn't average 7.5 innings/start. Try 6.0 to 6.5. Look at the leaders in innings/start: http://www.rotoauthority.com/2007/07/innings-pitched.html (ETA: By the way, I realize that's from the middle of the year... I just couldn't find any end of year stats for it.) And you're suggesting that all three of those kids are going to do better than the best in the league last year? Please. I'd be happy with 6.0 innings/start from them on average. Key phrase: on average. But what does this point of yours tell me? This tells me that when it's time for you to make a decision about something, you don't do any research. It seems like you just pull numbers out of your ass based on a perception of you what you THINK they should be doing. The most realistic scenario is probably what I presented above. Hughes will make a full complement of starts, if used as a #5 starter. Kennedy can start a full season's worth of starts, more or less. Chamberlain will be used in the bullpen. While he's there, Moose - or someone else like Horne, Marquez, or White - will get the starts. Of course, this all goes out the window the second an injury crops up, and they almost inevitably do. In that case, the Yanks are fortunate to have good depth in their minor leagues in terms of talent that scouts believe are capable of performing at the ML-level. 10P10 summed it up in his post, but it bears repeating: It's what happens every year! Look at the dynasty years. Please. Actually look at them. Read the numbers. Understand them. Those years were no different than any other year. What's different is that people now look back on those years with distorted perceptions about how great that bullpen was. And it was great... but not because it was comprised of relievers who at a high level year in and year out. It was comprised of relievers who all had a good year together. What is mildly bothersome is that you didn't address any of my other points (most likely because you couldn't), and so you just throw out the same arguments again, expecting people to believe them because you say things like, "that is a recipe for disaster." Well, if jonnyd says so, I guess it must be! Sorry... doesn't work like that. You talk about having a crappy backup catcher, when he's actually quite good comparatively. You talk about having no depth on the bench, when this is possibly the strongest bench the Yanks have had in ten years in terms of talent. You talk about the bullpen being crappy without being able to offer an alternative that is shown to be better, and you seemingly don't understand the highly variable performance of bullpen relievers, in general. You talk about how the kids will only be able to make twenty starts, but you expect them to throw more innings per start than the best pitchers in baseball to get there. I can't take your arguments seriously when they're flawed like this. Show me some proof. Show me some statistical evidence that would lend weight to your arguments. You can believe whatever you like, I guess, but don't expect me to buy it if you can't/won't offer something more than what you've offered so far. It seems silly to me to base expectations off of payroll, as opposed to talent on the team... or to expect the two to be perfectly correlated. It's not your money. Steinbrenner can expect them to be competitive every year because of the money he's shelling out, but the average fan isn't owed anything because of the payroll. ETA: From Peter Abraham's blog: So I guess that answers that. I'd like to see Chamberlain in the pen to start the year, Kennedy #4 and Hughes #5 (because of innings). Then stretch out Chamberlain and have him start after the ASB or so. He can replace Moose in the rotation. Bullpen better. Rotation still okay. Moose scares me, though.
I usually don't start researching the prospects until around this time. But I like the MLB Draft more than any other because of how unconventional it is. In the NFL Draft, guys with Top 10 talent don't drop to the mid-rounds like they can in the MLB Draft. It's especially fun if you're a Yankees fan, because we can just outspend other teams for great prospects a few rounds in. I'll be satisfied with either one. I'm hoping they go with a more balanced draft between pitching/offense this year like last year, but if Cole or Melville drops they must be taken.
cappy hows this for research- I read about 1 paragraph of your last post, took a piss and now came back to respond....lets just agree to disagree. your stance is that the Yankees have a solid staff and a solid pen once the "big surprise" of the year comes out...I say, we have a potential good staff a couple years from now but for this season a lot of question marks due to an aging pettitte and three kids. kids. I also think our pen is made up of so-so journeymen in farnsy and hawkins and a few more unknowns. you call me pessimistic and I call you too optimistic. lets wait and see how it turns out. fair enough?......as for 10p10 to do a little "house cleaning"...hows our argument about hollweg being just as much to blame as jagr, shanny, straka, prucha lookin these days? have you come to your sense yet and realized how dumb your argument was?
i read through your last post again cappy.....so now hughes is our number 5 and joba's starts are "iffy" BUT according to you, we're not going to have a piece meal hodge podge staff.
I never said Hollweg was "just as much to blame" as the top line guys. He's just a bad hockey player. Just because he is a bad hockey player doesn't mean I think everyone else is a superstar. I've been vocal in the Rangers thread for a while that Jagr and Straka need to go for next year (preferably at the trade deadline this year), and Shanny needed to atleast take a long break. I really don't mind Prucha as a third liner, but I wouldn't care much if he was traded for a similar inconsistant player (Ryder from MTL perhaps). Come on jonny, I'm sure you're a pretty smart guy, but you look ridiculous in these arguments. You just start calling people names and make false accusations about what the conversation is about, and when you're called on it you just say we should agree to disagree. Either understand and comprehend what's being talked about and actually contribute something, or if you think you're incapable of doing that, don't say anything at all.
thats not exactly how the prucha argument went down.......... as far as your comments of me backing down and saying we'll agree to disagree....its not a cop-out. Nothing was proven to me or said to make my argument look stupid....why because cappy says hughes is the 5th starter now? and joba's starts are iffy...and his assumption that kennedy will pitch a full ML season? those three statements by him PROVE that my pessimism is warranted. how can you be a yankee fan and not have big time questions about our starting staff anf pen this year? you two are by far in the minority amongst yankee fans. as far as hollweg goes, the man is a perfectly serviceable FOURTH line guy who adds spark to the team and makes sure theres no shenanigans against the rangers.....Prucha however you like as a third liner. he has 17 pts in 55 games bro. you know as well as I do that the way the game has changed you need more than that from 3rd line guys. Before the eurotrash invasion of the 90's teams would get away with two scoring lines-cant do it anymore. 17 pts in 55 games...that is a complete lack of production dude
I'm not talking about you saying "agree to disagree" to the conversation you had with Cappy, but I see it now that you pointed it out. You've done it before in the Rangers thread. Of course I have concerns about the rotation and bullpen. I'm the one who said I'm waiting for 2009 for the team to take off, the playoffs are a bonus this year given all the unknowns. But just because I point out that it's absolutely possible the unknowns turn out to be positives for the Yankees this year, all of a sudden I have no worries or reservations about the pitching. I've never seen someone with such an ability to create false assumptions. And you do it in baseball AND hockey! I'm not getting into the hockey conversation anymore in this thread. All I'll say about Hollweg is since we have Avery to agitate and Orr to fight, I'll take someone with a little more offensive potential, unless we dump Orr and let Avery walk. Like I said about Prucha, stay or go, I'm indifferent. I don't mind if he stays because his overall game has improved playing with a vet like Drury and a sniper like Dawes, and he has a track record. I don't mind if he goes because he's not much of a creator offensively and Renney has decided to not play him on the PP anymore.
well dude if you have concerns about the rotation and the pen as wewll then the argument really need not go any further. and your point about your saying the unknowns could turn out to be great is just as valid as my point that the unknows could be bad....I was the one that was villified for being a negative bastard. But that being said, the more unknows you have, the bigger potential for disappointments you have- you see, you need a large majority of the unknowns to be nice surprises or we wont compete. Cappy is happy throwing in as many unknows as he can becauses somethings bound to be good. true, but that also means that plenty is gonna be shit....how many shitty performances(full year Im sayin) can a pitching staff withstand?. hughes-unknown. joba- unknown kennedy- unknown veras- unknown ohlendorf- unknown farnsy-known, unfortunately edwar- unknown...although he was pretty much shit after his first few appearances but Ill give him the benefit of the doubt and call him unknown. moose as a starter-unknown at best at his age moose in the pen-unknown wang, pettitte and mo are the only three that we can honestly say we know what we have, and we like it. am I missing someone? I could be. if im not, we have 3 knowns on our staff going into 08. doesnt exactly give me the warm and fuzzies. fair enough?
I take umbrage at this remark. Jonnyd is right. There is lots of young potential on the staff. Which is nice, and I'm all for lettin' em rip and seeing what happens, but potential cuts both ways. Some of you may be old enough to remember when our current pitching coach was a young gun with much potential. Dark days indeed.
yes, like the sam militello days.....cappy and 10p10 like to do research and show all these meaningless stats....sometimes guys, you just have to have a feel for the game....and last year I saw a team with no legit ace and no way to bridge between starter and MO. and guess what we have today....no legit ace and no way to bridge to mo.......long season
